The Project Gutenberg eBook of Women in the factory
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Women in the factory
an administrative adventure, 1893 to 1921
Author: Adelaide Mary Anderson
Author of introduction, etc.: George Cave
Release date: June 26, 2026 [eBook #78951]
Language: English
Original publication: New York: E. P. Dutton and company, 1922
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/78951
Credits: Richard Tonsing and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from images made available by the HathiTrust Digital Library.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WOMEN IN THE FACTORY ***
WOMEN IN THE FACTORY
_All rights reserved._
WOMEN IN THE FACTORY
AN ADMINISTRATIVE ADVENTURE, 1893 TO 1921
BY ADELAIDE MARY ANDERSON
D.B.E., M.A.
FORMERLY HIS MAJESTY’S PRINCIPAL LADY INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, HOME
OFFICE
FOREWORD BY THE
RIGHT HON. THE VISCOUNT CAVE, G.C.M.G.
LORD OF APPEAL; FORMERLY HIS MAJESTY’S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
THE HOME DEPARTMENT
“Thou, O God, dost sell us all good things at the price of labour.”
LEONARDO DA VINCI.
NEW YORK
E. P. DUTTON AND COMPANY
1922
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
BILLING AND SONS, LTD., GUILDFORD AND ESHER
DEDICATED TO
ALL WOMEN WORKERS
OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND
FOREWORD
This book tells the story of the Woman Inspectorate of Factories and
Workshops from its beginning in 1893, when the first Women Inspectors
(Miss May Abraham and Miss Mary Paterson) made their first inspection,
until the year 1921, when thirty Women Inspectors saw the fruits of the
work of their branch, not only in greatly developed protection for the
woman worker, but also in her own increased capacity to help herself.
It was a story worth the telling, for it is a chronicle of a steady and
dogged campaign, of few defeats and many victories. The adversaries to
be met were all the ills which threaten the “factory girl”—poisoning by
lead or phosphorus or arsenic or mercury, insanitary or unventilated
rooms, accidents from unsafe machinery, phthisis, anthrax, overstrain,
truck and sweating, and more besides. Readers who like a “thrill” will
perhaps begin with the chapters on “Dangerous Trades” and on the War;
and if their imagination serves them, they may read between the lines of
those brief records stories of suffering, of endurance, and of rescue,
which will set them wondering why our predecessors so long grudged to
the woman worker the help which only a woman can give.
But the whole book, with its documented record of steady grinding effort
and hard-won success, is well worth reading.
Dame Adelaide Anderson went through it all, and for twenty-four out of
the twenty-eight years with which the volume is concerned filled the
responsible position of Chief Woman Inspector with untiring devotion and
conspicuous success. It was plainly “up to” her to write the history of
the struggle; and all will like to read it who honour our working women
for their work and value their welfare.
(_Signed_) CAVE.
RICHMOND,
_March 30, 1922_.
AUTHOR’S PREFACE
The writing of the following story of what Women Inspectors did for
women and girl workers under the Factory Acts and Truck Acts was
undertaken in response to the wish of friends and colleagues that it
should be told, while memory was fresh, by one who had seen the largest
part of the conditions and immediate effects of the work—a work carried
on under aims and organisation that are now undergoing change.
The aims and the starting-point of the past organisation are shown in
the Introduction, and the outcome, down to 1921, is unfolded in the
following chapters.
The material available in official reports for those who wish to study
the facts more closely is so full of incident that, with the best will
to be brief, it has been difficult to tell the tale shortly. Keeping
entirely to published official records the whole could be told over
again with fresh illustrations. And yet much that was significant and
enlightening can only be seen in innumerable notices in the daily and
weekly press and monthly reviews of the period; a fairly full collection
of these exists, but they could only be quoted occasionally in these
pages. Their correspondence in general tendency with the outlook shown
in Parliamentary Debates—of which an account is given in Chapter VI.—is
noteworthy.
Next to the breadth of the field of action of the Women Inspectorate,
and the variety of their contacts with local administration and the
courts, as well as with industry, the smallness of their numbers from
1893 to 1914 strikes the mind. The strength of the impulse that
sustained and carried them through their years of labour may be traced
to conditions summed up in words spoken to one of them by a woman
toiling at a heavy task, “Is it right that I should have to do this work
and only have eight shillings a week for it?”
There was a dominating impulse towards relieving the hardships and
sufferings of working women that drew all the women who entered the
Factory Department into a real unity of endeavour—whatever their social
or political outlook before entering.
It is in the same spirit that they have lent me indispensable help in
the completing of this little book. I wish gratefully to acknowledge the
time and thought freely given to it by those who have long worked with
me. Miss Martindale has critically read through all the typed
manuscript, Miss Squire the chapter on Wages and the Truck Acts. Miss
Squire has also most kindly revised the Appendix I. on Special
Regulations for Dangerous Trades, written in 1913, and brought the
details up to the present time. Miss Escreet supplied me with most
helpful summaries from the mass of material in Annual Reports on child
labour, heavy weights, and religious and charitable institutions. Miss
Maura Brooke-Gwynne has devoted much time and skill to a literary
criticism of the text. Miss Paterson and Mrs. Drury have kindly written
special contributions, the former on mothers and child labour—subjects
of special appeal to Women Inspectors—the latter on a stirring day in
the life of a Factory Inspector. Finally, I wish to thank Mr. Gerald
Bellhouse for some figures in the Introduction, and Dr. Legge for kindly
reading through the chapter on Dangerous Trades, for his helpful
comments, and for the tabulation of reported cases of industrial
poisoning. They are in no way responsible, however, for my facts or
opinions.
A. M. A.
UNIVERSITY WOMEN’S CLUB,
2, AUDLEY SQUARE, W.
_April 2, 1922_.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION: HOW WOMEN INSPECTORS CAME, AND WHAT THEY
CAME TO DO 1
II. THE WOMEN WORKERS AND THEIR APPEAL; EXCESSIVE HOURS,
INSANITATION, AND OTHER UNCIVILISED CONDITIONS 22
III. WOMEN’S WAGES AND THE TRUCK ACTS; THE PIECEWORKER AND HER
PAY 58
IV. DANGEROUS AND INJURIOUS TRADES; ACCIDENTS AND SAFETY 94
V. EMPLOYMENT OF MOTHERS; CHILD LABOUR; CHARITABLE
INSTITUTIONS 149
VI. THE LIFE OF THE INSPECTOR AND ITS INFLUENCE ON
LEGISLATION; EXPERIENCES IN COURTS 190
VII. THE WAR AND WOMEN “SUBSTITUTES”; NEW LIGHT ON HOURS,
LABOUR-SAVING, FATIGUE, FOOD, AND EFFICIENCY 224
VIII. DEVELOPMENT OF FACTORY WELFARE AND ITS RECOGNITION BY
PARLIAMENT; WORKS’ COMMITTEES AND WELFARE MANAGEMENT 250
APPENDIX I. SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR DANGEROUS TRADES 287
APPENDIX II. REPORTED CASES OF INDUSTRIAL POISONING AND ANTHRAX 306
INDEX 308
WOMEN IN THE FACTORY
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION: HOW WOMEN INSPECTORS CAME, AND WHAT THEY CAME TO DO
This book aims at giving some account of an enterprise that is felt by
the Women Officers who lived through it to have been a great experience
and a great adventure in the service of the State and Nation—an account
that must be somewhat less and yet more than a chronicle.
It is hoped, with the aid of outstanding facts and features recorded in
many Blue-books and other documents issued during the time, to give a
picture of the undertakings and experiences of these women, both at the
outset and through the experimental development of their administration
of Acts and regulations for women in industry, and to trace changes that
have followed in conditions of factory life in a period of little over a
quarter of a century.
Personality and the idealising powers of youth (our average age at the
beginning was twenty-seven years), embarking on a calling that involved
conduct of legal proceedings and much other technical knowledge of an
entirely novel kind for women of that day, counted for much. We had also
liberal, kindly direction and encouragements behind our efforts from the
higher authorities responsible for sanctioning and carrying out the
decision to appoint us. Yet the main impetus came from without, in the
needs of the women workers who had persistently called—from 1878
onwards—for the personal aid and understanding of “Women Inspectors,”
armed with authority and powers to enquire into and enforce remedies for
wrong conditions, or to persuade sympathetic employers to provide
amenities that the law could not enforce.
Much that seemed novel then has, through the publicity of our work and
the spontaneous lively interest taken in Parliament and elsewhere in our
published reports, become part of the natural order of things. Yet in
those days the first appearance of a Woman Inspector in her proper field
of work, whether inside a factory or workshop[1] or on the solicitors’
bench in the police courts, was liable to cause a sensation of surprise,
sometimes very favourable to the new-comer.
“Are _you_ the lady inspector? Why, I expected to see a woman six feet
high and a perfect virago;” or, “Girls, it is a lady this time, come and
tell her everything she wants to know;” or (in Ireland), “We had a
gentleman inspector here last month, and he said we must take dinner at
the same hour every day: now a lady like you will know _that_ is
impossible!” In police courts it was not unknown for waiting solicitors
to enter with keen interest into the merits of our cases and even try to
offer professional hints in support of our amateur efforts. Yet the
following is a typical press comment of early years: “A small sensation
was caused in K—— Police Court when for the first time a lady advocate
appeared.... She made her statement with as much clearness and ease as
any more accustomed advocate, and as the facts and laws were alike
indisputable, conviction necessarily followed.”
When this story begins, in great industrial communities of Europe, and
pre-eminently in Great Britain, women’s labour in industry had for more
than a hundred years fundamentally depended, without control by women,
on such organisation as was furnished by capitalist and middlemen
employers, in a factory system that had been completely severed from
domestic life. Trade union organisation for women was generally a small,
young, and fragile plant where it existed at all. In textile factories
for upwards of fifty years Factory Inspectors had applied certain
outstanding statutory limits and requirements in matters of hours of
labour, elementary sanitation, and safety; and for a much shorter time
in many non-textile factories. Glamour had been lent to these questions
of regulation by movements for reform led by such outstanding
personalities as Robert Owen, Shaftesbury, Peel, Oastler, Sadler. The
fact remained, however, as official witnesses assured the Royal
Commission on Labour in 1891–92, that women workers themselves tendered
practically none of the complaints that the Inspectors were there to
remedy and to which they looked for clues in exercising their protective
functions.[2]
Apart from the few industries where women had in some degree carried
their traditional skill over from the domestic system of industry into
certain factory processes—I have to write in few words of a many-sided,
unevenly-moving change—the entry and ever-extending rule of the power-
engine had brought “lower grade work and diminished industrial self-
respect”[3] for women workers in a wide field. The loss also of
leadership and supervision by fellow-women of better education in the
“making of things” (such as soap, candles, and the many other articles
formerly made at home) that obtained under the domestic system—that is,
by women more habituated than workers to exercise of direction—brought a
new social cleavage between them and working women. This meant an
incalculable loss to both classes of women. Yet it meant still more for
the whole community—the elimination, for a dark period, of the guiding
ideas of women in regard to conditions essential for a good industrial
life of both women and men.
Thus, the factory system of the nineteenth century, “unsuited as we now
know it to have been to men, was far more unsuited to women.”[4] For the
worker it emptied more than half the meaning from the ancient symbol of
a social order when _master_ meant _master of craft_, “As the eyes of
servants look unto the hands of their masters and the eyes of a maiden
unto the hand of her mistress.” It wholly removed into the realms of
mythology classic pictures of the days when women’s industries were
entirely home industries—of Nausicaa and her maiden laundresses on the
seashore of Corcyra, or of Penelope weaving in the days when “Pallas
taught the texture of the loom.”
While mechanical power mainly ruled, instead of serving, in the factory,
the intervention of State regulation merely prevented the greatest
abuses. Even constructive and efficient application of scientific
standards to human conditions of manual work was almost unthought of,
and the withdrawal of the poet from the arena of industry proclaimed the
essential barbarity of its character.
And yet the official life that was lived by the Women Inspectors in
those early days of infinite surprises and appeals was a most lovable
and enthralling one, of great movement and happiness. We escaped all
fear of “venturing the hand into the spinning cog-wheels of the huge,
implacable machine.” How much we owed to the fact that—in a wonderful
ignorance of ordinary official method and tradition—we were sent out
into a wide world to find our tasks; sent with powers that could and did
effect changes, having eyes and hearts ready and anxious to read the
meaning of the system under which a million and a half of our fellow-
country women made the things needed to clothe and feed the body and to
furnish and equip the home! Understanding of the basis from which we set
out can hardly be attained without a brief survey of the stages in the
movement that led to our appointment.
On February 19, 1891, Miss Emily Faithful, after an interview with the
Home Secretary, Lord Aberdare, about the working of the Factory Act,
wrote a letter to _The Times_. She said that as long ago as 1872 the
information she received from various sources strengthened her
conviction that Women Inspectors were necessary if certain evils were to
be redressed and rules enforced in places where women were employed. The
first effectual advocacy of the appointment of women as Inspectors came,
however, from a leader in Women’s Trade Union Organisation, Mrs. Emma
Ann Paterson, wife of Thomas Paterson, “a man of genius and of
remarkable range of knowledge belonging to the ranks of labour.” Working
women owe to her, said Mr. Hodgson Pratt, in an obituary notice, “an
eternal debt for her wise, practical, and incessant labours. She founded
in 1874 and conducted the Women’s Protective and Provident League.[5] It
was not easy to teach ill-paid, overworked women that by association
among themselves they could raise their position ... and combine for a
demand of fair treatment by employers. Women accustomed to think
themselves too weak and dependent, too ‘inferior,’ women isolated and
struggling for bare life ... how could they combine or do anything? Emma
Paterson has taught hundreds of them—bookbinders, upholstresses,
dressmakers, machinists, tailoresses, and others—that they can do all
this. She has given them a new life, shown them the noble idea of mutual
help and service ... and given them the power of organisation and self-
government.”[6] Mrs. Paterson and another member of the league were
deputed in 1875 to represent two of the London Women’s Unions at the
Trade Union Congress in Glasgow, and there and in various other
industrial centres of Great Britain, she extended her activities for
trade union organisation of women.
In the year 1878—the year of the first great consolidation of numerous
Factory Acts—at the Bristol Meeting of Trade Union Congress Mrs.
Paterson moved to include “women” in a resolution urging upon the
Government the appointment of “practical working men” as Inspectors
under the Factory Act. This was carried, and in 1881 she arranged for a
conference, at which Lord Shaftesbury presided, to advocate the
appointment of women as Factory Inspectors. She did not live to see the
reform, as she died in December, 1886.
Although Trade Union Congress never failed to pass the amendment in
favour of appointment of working women as Inspectors, brought up year
after year by successors to Mrs. Paterson, Parliamentary Committee was
either unfavourable or lukewarm. “Oh, pass it,” one great person is
reported to have said; “it don’t matter, they will never get it.” Fresh
factors were needed to bring the administrative reform into being.
In 1899, when a doubt had been expressed by Mr. Matthews, Home
Secretary, whether he had power to appoint a woman, and even whether
there would be enough work for her to do if he had, the Fabian Society
inserted a clause (eventually proved unnecessary) in an Eight Hours
Bill, expressly declaring that women were eligible for the Inspectorate.
Year after year the pressure grew stronger from various sides, and was
in no way lessened by the appointment between 1881 and 1890 of a
considerable number of “practical working men” as Inspectors.
As the agitation grew, the burden on women of ever severer speeding-up
of machinery and the so-called “driving system” in cotton mills, of
excessively long hours and overtime in the dress and clothing trades, of
“sweated” wages in various low-grade industries and outwork, and of the
increasingly-felt evils of bad sanitation, fines, and deductions from
uncertain wages, all gave point and urgency to this claim. While wages
for men were rising, for women, on the whole, they were stationary or
falling. Enquiries into the sweating system had shown its worst features
to be low wages, long hours, and insanitary surroundings. In spite of
the long years since Hood wrote his “Song of the Shirt,” these adverse
conditions continued to affect women. Middle and upper class women’s
political organisations began to move energetically. The Women’s Liberal
Association and Women’s Liberal Federation had this question, annually
on their agenda, discussed, and resolutions passed from 1890 onwards.
As Miss I. O. Ford wrote in 1896: “The idea that it was not right, that
it was unjust and sometimes even cruel, for women to have no one but men
to whom they could appeal against any sort of abuse, had been steadily
growing in people’s minds. It was an idea that appealed to everyone,
both rich and poor.” Miss Ford had already spoken repeatedly in this
sense, notably in 1892 at the Bristol meeting of the National Council of
Women Workers.
At last, between 1891 and 1893, the turning-point in the movement came,
with the appointment and work of the Royal Commission on Labour. Four
Women Assistant Commissioners were appointed at an early stage in the
proceedings. One, Miss May Abraham, Secretary to Lady Dilke (better
known as Mrs. H. J. Tennant, C.H.), became in the spring of 1893 one of
the two first Women Factory Inspectors under the Home Office, the other
being Miss Mary Paterson, with valuable experience of Labour questions
in Scotland. Another Assistant Commissioner, Miss Clara Collett, became
special correspondent for women’s industrial conditions to the
Statistical Department of the Board of Trade. The report of the Women
Assistant Commissioners, the first official women investigators of
industrial conditions, received high praise and conclusively supported
the demand for appointment of Women Inspectors. One of the two
Secretaries of the Commission, Mr. Geoffrey Drage, furthered the
movement by employing University women and giving them opportunity and
training as clerks to the Commission. After the appointment of Miss Lucy
Deane in April, 1894, two of his staff were added to the Inspectorate,
Miss A. M. Anderson (July, 1894), and Miss A. Tracey (1897), bringing
additional experience in précis-writing and knowledge of foreign
reports, especially of French, German, and Austrian industrial codes.
Miss R. E. Squire, appointed in December, 1895, brought, like Miss
Deane, fresh and good experience as a Sanitary Inspector. These first
five Inspectors have all, in time, passed to other tasks and
responsibilities.
The comparative survey of international Labour questions in the chief
industrial countries that was undertaken by the Royal Commission on
Labour followed soon after the work of the International Conference on
regulation of conditions of work in factories and mines, held in Berlin
in March, 1890, at the invitation of the German Emperor. That conference
was followed in England by the passing of the Factory Act of 1891. This
limited the employment of women after childbirth, raised the age of
admission and employment of a child, and provided for regulation of
dangerous and injurious trades. It is now of peculiar interest that that
“forerunner” of the Labour Convention under the Peace Treaty of 1919
should be in a manner linked with the first effectual employment of
women as Factory Inspectors.
At a political meeting of the National Liberal Federation in January,
1893, Mr. Asquith spoke as Home Secretary, among other subjects, on
Administration of Factory Laws, promising extension of the Inspectorate,
and adding: “I hope I may be able at the same time to do something—it
will not be much—to gratify the desires of our lady friends for female
inspection.” He did far more; he gave them their liberal starting-point
and wide field of activity. Opportunities were maintained and extended
by Sir Matthew White Ridley and a long succession of Home Secretaries.
Permanent Under-Secretaries, too, furthered the work in its earliest
stages by carefully planned instructions; Sir Godfrey Lushington was the
first, and Sir Kenelm Digby succeeded him in January, 1895, and largely
guided our legal work through nine eventful years. Sir Mackenzie
Chalmers followed him, until he in turn was succeeded, in 1908, by Sir
Edward Troup. It was the last who gave evidence to the Royal Commission
on the Civil Service in 1913 that the work of the Women Inspectors,
expressly organised as it was on parallel lines with the men’s, was
comparable with and as good as theirs.
The quality of the earliest Women Inspectors did much to decide the
official status of women in the Inspectorate. Between some of the
official witnesses to the Labour Commission, who urged that the
appointments—admitted to be inevitable—should be solely as subordinate
assistants, “never to be called on to discharge the higher duties of the
office,” and outside claimants, who pressed for their full appointment
to _all_ the powers and duties of an Inspector, there stood a middle
party with moderating views. From them, led by Lady Dilke, came the
advice that women should enter as a special class of officers to serve
in trades in which women were employed. Somewhere between the extreme
limits proposed the higher official decision was made. It was there, in
women’s trades, the field at that time of women’s greatest need, that
the new Inspectors found their practically limitless work. And by the
decision they were saved, first, from a hampering necessity of working
entirely under conditions and according to standards already prescribed
before they entered with their new instinctive understanding of
complaints made to them by working women. Secondly, they were saved from
losing themselves in an overpowering mass of technical requirements,
such as elaborate fencing of machinery[7] primarily affecting men,
where—presumably—Men Inspectors were sufficient without women’s aid. At
the beginning their instructions allowed them to take up any questions
affecting women and girls, including fencing. For a time, and at their
own instance, they referred all fencing to the Men Inspectors, while
they turned almost exclusively to questions of general hygiene
(cleanliness, ventilation, temperature, sanitary conveniences, etc.),
hours, excessive overtime, fines and deductions from wages, payment in
kind in various parts of the United Kingdom, dangerous and injurious
processes, industrial poisoning, employment of young workers, and of
women after childbirth; and to the encouragement of employers making
voluntary welfare arrangements in the factories. Later, from 1901
onwards, they took up special questions of fencing affecting women in
laundries and clothing factories, and there they succeeded in
standardising methods.
The Women Inspectors were, in fact, free under the early official
instructions to devote the concentrated energy of heart and mind, in
enthusiastic “team-work,” to enquiry and action on these most urgent
problems. Happily they entered just when public opinion, as distinct
from specialised knowledge, was awakening to the immense extent of
injury and loss and to the great need for constructive reforms in
industrial life. Their first Chief (under the Home Secretary, who had
initiated this addition to the Inspectorate), was Mr. R. E. Sprague
Oram, C.B. During his administration the important new provisions of the
Factory Act of 1891 were applied and the preparatory enquiries for the
yet more important Act of 1895 were begun. This Act furnished new
starting-points and made provision for more exact knowledge, in
requiring regular returns of persons employed in a factory or workshop
with particulars as to age and sex, and notification by medical
practitioners and employers of cases of industrial poisoning, together
with other provisions for regulation of dangerous trades. These were
carried to far greater developments under our second Chief, Sir Arthur
Whitelegge, K.C.B., M.D., in what may be considered the culminating
period of Factory Act administration.
Before the retirement of Mr. Oram in 1896, the five Women Inspectors
were, in harmony with their own wish, formally constituted a branch of
the Factory Department, under immediate superintendence of Miss May
Abraham, subject of course, as all branches were, to control by the
Chief Inspector. Miss Abraham retired from the Inspectorate in May,
1897, a year after marriage, and the branch continued from that year
until August 1, 1921, under direction of the writer of this book. From
1896 the reports of the women were, until 1914 inclusive, issued over
the signature of this head of the branch, as a separate section in the
Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, thus giving a clear history of the
progress of their work. Staff Committees to enquire into and make
recommendations on organisation came and went at intervals of a few
years, but the only important changes affecting organisation of the
Women Inspectors’ work that came before 1921 were in 1899 and in 1908.
In 1899 came the useful devolution, never extended beyond two districts,
of special district charge of certain women’s industries into the Women
Inspectors’ hands. In the later year came the creating of new group
centres in the chief industrial cities (Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham,
etc.), where the Women Inspectors, under charge of a senior woman,
carried on their routine general inspection and enquiries into
complaints in factories employing women and girls, but with newly
defined duties, investigating notified cases of industrial poisoning,
accidents, and other matters specially affecting women. All this work,
however, was subject to the central direction at the Home Office through
the Principal Woman Inspector, and was carried on in definitely
regulated co-operation with their colleagues, the Men Inspectors in
charge of Districts, as well as the Medical and Engineering Inspectors.
The number of Women Inspectors grew, from five in 1897, to twenty-one
just before the Great War in 1914, increasing by temporary additions
during the War to a maximum of thirty. From this point, further and
adequate extension in numbers of the women’s branch was admittedly
impracticable without reorganisation of a fundamental character. To
prevent cumbrous dual inspection of factories largely employing women it
was necessary to have either well-defined sharing and division of the
whole work of inspection as between men and women, with interchange of
Inspectors as regards any factories not employing men or women
exclusively; or a fusion more or less complete of men and women for
_all_ duties and responsibilities. This assumes that broadly they are
alike effective, whether for enforcing safety of men and boys in
shipbuilding, docks, blast furnaces, foundries, engineering works, etc.,
or for securing health and safety of women and girls in fruit preserving
and confectionery works, laundries, corset factories, millinery, mantle
and shirt and collar factories, textile factories.
Fusion was the line of development chosen by the Home Office, under a
scheme that allowed in 1921 for 42 Women and 195 Men Inspectors; this
could not then be fully carried out as to numbers.
It is impossible to state exactly the present proportionate number of
men and women in factories and workshops for purposes of comparison with
the earliest systematic figures, which were published by the Factory
Department in 1896. At that time there were in the United Kingdom
144,000 factories and workshops in which 1,403,568 women and girls and
2,699,917 men and boys were employed. These figures had risen by 1907 to
1,852,241 women and girls and 3,274,868 men and boys. When the War broke
out there were nearly 2,000,000 women and girls employed in factories
and workshops. By the end of the War there were 3,000,000 women and
girls industrially employed, and in 1919 the women and girls still
numbered over 2,000,000 in a total of over 6,000,000 male and female.
The rise and fall of “substitution” during the War and of unemployment
in 1920 to 1921, makes more recent exact comparison difficult. At the
outside the ratio of female to all workers can hardly exceed 35 per
cent.
While the reorganisation of the Inspectorate that began in August, 1921,
rounds off a well-marked epoch in Factory Act administration, giving
point to the choice of period covered by this book, it is well to
remember that in industry itself there remains, for the present, small
change in the division of occupations between men and women workers.
The hopes of a substantial widening of women workers’ activities, to
follow after the great work of their substitution for men in factories
during the War, have not been fulfilled, and in some processes women
have been excluded by the unions with increased stringency since the
War. The ratio of men and women in industry probably remains somewhere
near that in 1907. Thus the greater numbers of men with their immense
problems of safety and accident prevention provide the largest call on
the time of the whole Inspectorate. And Women Inspectors are now bound
to take a considerable share of this work.
A great gain may be achieved by developing fuller mutual interchange of
special knowledge and special experience between Men and Women
Inspectors as regards hygiene, safety, and welfare of all the workers at
a time when Inspectors are becoming less and less corrective, and more
and more constructive, in their functions. It was a matter of common
regret among the earlier Women Inspectors that they could do so little,
even indirectly, to further much-needed reform in conditions of health
and welfare for men and boy workers. “Let the Women Inspectors come into
our shops,” said a bold and advanced male trade union worker at a
meeting, early in the twentieth century, at which the writer explained
dangerous trades regulations; “they seem to be able to frighten
employers into doing things!”
Any change of organisation can, however, in the long run, be weighed and
judged only by the result in increased effectiveness and fineness of
inspection, not by greater official convenience, nor by a theory of
equality of men and women. We have yet to learn whether in face of the
actualities of industrial life complete fusion of the functions and
activities of Men and Women Inspectors can serve the many distinct needs
of men and women in factories and workshops better than some degree of
specialisation and co-ordination.
In order to secure permanent, equal eligibility of men and women for
future appointments and promotions in the department, some equivalence
in numbers is necessary. A minority which is no more than approximately
a fifth of the whole has small chance of putting up as many able
candidates for promotion as the larger majority. As a general rule the
minority has, further, the extra handicap of compulsory retirement on
marriage. Thus some approximation of the number of Women Inspectors to
at least the relative proportion of women in industry is a necessary
corollary of “fusion” of the Inspectorate. The value of the special
contribution brought by Women Factory Inspectors to the regulation of
factory life for women and girls is too well and authoritatively
established to be, as it were, accidentally lost.
The testimony of the Women’s Employment Committee under the Ministry of
Reconstruction, in 1919, as to the great “administrative success” of the
work of the Women Inspectors is strong.[8] It can be tried and tested by
a careful study of the range of subjects the Women Inspectors covered,
and of the records of their actions, in the Annual Reports of the Chief
Inspector issued by the Home Office from 1894 to 1914; by the testimony
of working women; by the official reports of Parliamentary Debates on
Home Office Administration, and on amending Factory Acts embodying
recommendations which they had been emboldened to make. More arresting
and convincing, however, for the general reader may be observations from
a distinguished onlooker outside official ranks.
Listen to the voice of Canon Scott Holland, speaking in July, 1896, in
the Editorial Notes of the _Commonwealth_, on the new light that was
appearing in the dark places of factory industry:
“What used to be one of the most depressing and uninforming of Annual
Blue-books is now (issue for 1895) one of the most interesting and
valuable.... I take from my shelf the starved-looking report of the
‘eighties’ and early ‘nineties’ and lay it out by the side of the two
stout volumes just issued, and wish that the people who are losing
heart ... all the wise people who have seen so many things in their
time that they can never believe in an upright and vigilant
officialdom, would come and turn over the leaves with me.... It is the
report of crusaders; it brims with suggestions of reform.... You feel
that to be a Factory Inspector is to be something splendid and
stirring and effective; that these men and women are the missionaries
of order and health, and that they bring hope with them where they go.
“The state of things is in many ways disgracefully bad, but it is
something to see the State itself exposing the evil and casting about
for a cure. Since 1892 the staff has been increased by 50 per cent....
“The joint report (of the Women Inspectors) is a record of tremendous
work, accomplished with courage and judgment.
“The work of levelling up as to safety and health goes on apace.... It
is cheering to see that many manufacturers are becoming alive to the
effects of industry on health....
“The report has a special interest on account of its being the
valedictory message of Mr. Sprague Oram, H.M. Chief Inspector, who
retires after half a century of public service.... It is no secret
that much of the go-ahead work of the last few years has been due to
his enthusiasm, initiative, and devotion.... He hands over his duties
to Dr. Whitelegge, a distinguished authority on public health, who
should be a tower of strength ... in the work of making every factory
and workshop fit for human beings to work in.”
The entering of a breath of new life, obvious as it becomes in the
Annual Reports of 1895, 1896, and onwards, is not, and must not be,
attributed disproportionately to the entry and work of the small band of
Women Inspectors—for that itself sprang from a wider movement affecting
the whole department. None the less, it was a powerful new factor that
gained in effectiveness as time went on. And it preceded in time even
the highly significant and essential addition of Medical Inspectors
considered in Chapter IV. If we do not speak here in detail of the fine
work done by Men Inspectors, it is because that lies outside the scope
of this brief survey. They have had great pioneering days in the early
battles for Factory Act regulation. Their service when Women Inspectors
entered with a new task before them had yet to be fully developed in the
light of scientific knowledge and method.
If these pages in any true measure picture, for twentieth-century
workers and employers, certain conditions in industry during the twenty-
eight years under review; if they can put any clues into the hands of
legislators and administrators regarding women’s share and needs in
industry, they will fulfil their aim. They are designed to serve as a
finger-post to the original documents. By imaginative study of them
alone can the growth and change of this profoundly interesting period be
seen. During its course, after about ninety years of tentative,
experimental Factory Acts, something like civilisation began to dawn
inside industry. Out of it there emerges, from about the year 1918,
glimpses of the possibility of a new order, when—instead of intervention
by the State between diverging interests of workers and employers—
regulation can partly spring from within industry itself, by Joint
Councils and Works’ Committees, as well as by representative Trade
Boards. Factory Inspectors may then become mainly technical and expert
advisers and counsellors in factories that are developing a life of co-
operation between manual workers and employers as co-organisers of
production.
NOTE.—The terms “factory” and “workshop” are defined in Section 149 of
the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901.
Broadly they apply to any workplace where the manufacture of any
article is carried on by way of trade or for purpose of gain and any
person is working under a contract of employment. If mechanical power
is used in aid of the process, the place is a factory; if not, as a
rule it is a workshop; but certain workplaces—_e.g._, tobacco works
and potteries—are factories, even if there be no power applied.
CHAPTER II
THE WOMEN WORKERS AND THEIR APPEAL; EXCESSIVE HOURS, INSANITATION, AND
OTHER UNCIVILISED CONDITIONS
“‘It’s gey handy to have the likes o’ you,’ a Scottish mother said
when consulting Miss Vines on the effects of employment on her
daughter’s health.”[9]
The outstanding characteristics of the working women of our country that
immediately appealed to the Women Factory Inspectors were their courage
and their endurance, their ready trustfulness, and their loyalty.
Instances of timidity, or fear of losing employment—hard to get and
easily lost—by evidence necessary to establish infringements of the law,
these did but throw up, in high relief, the dominating traits of the
majority. The exceptions were only natural in the days of severe
competition for poorly paid work, especially before the organisation in
1898 of the Industrial Law Indemnity Fund[10] for aiding workers
dismissed by employers after giving evidence that led to proof of
breaches of industrial laws.
A few months after my appointment to the Factory Department I went into
a factory just as a girl of fourteen years had been carried to the local
infirmary suffering from a compound fracture of her leg and other
injuries. “She had been at work at a card[11] for several weeks and was
esteemed as a careful, clever, and good worker. In the endeavour to keep
her card in good order by steady cleaning, her skirt had been caught in
the driving band and the mischief was done.... She had kept perfectly
clear and conscious, and had been chiefly concerned that no one should
alarm her mother, who was ill at home.”[12] The managing foreman was
much moved as he told me of this Lancashire girl’s serenity and
unselfishness under the sudden shock and suffering. Instances as strong
and stronger could be given by any Inspector of the way that a high and
fine spirit predominates when accidents and casualties occur in a
factory. Other examples in 1913, eighteen years later, may be compared
with that one. “Of a girl partially scalped,” Miss Martindale says: “Her
pluck and bravery were noteworthy; in fact, the qualities show
themselves in a remarkable degree in working girls when they meet a
severe physical shock;” of another, whose hand had to be amputated after
vain attempts to save it, she says that the girl mastered her
disappointment, and in two or three days after the operation began to
practise writing with her left hand, and in a month had become almost as
proficient as with the right. Or again, Miss Tracey says of fifteen
cases of serious lead poisoning among women employed in a workshop,
where they were “heading” yarn (dyed with a chromate of lead dye), “I
visited these workers at their homes and found them in different stages
of illness and convalescence. Their pluck will always remain fixed in my
mind; although many of them were unable to put into words the suffering
they had gone through, yet not one of them but was eagerly wishing to be
well enough to go back to work.”[13]
This is a spirit that is one with that we saw in the innumerable
“substitute” women and munition workers in the War. And before that
movement had well begun, an American employer in London had said in my
hearing that British women’s labour was the “best in the world,”
versatile, patient, and uncomplaining.
What were the characteristic features in the earlier days that the
Inspectors saw—drilling and testing the women? _First_, a mute sense of
industrial inferiority, outside the great textile industries, though
even of them a “mill girl” could write: “Mill girls need a sensible and
educated woman to further their cause.... How many of our women are
there that have to spend most of their lives in unhealthy, badly
ventilated and unsanitary mills, and must go on and tolerate the
condition of things silently, not daring to complain, and even if they
have courage they shrink from telling a man. A Woman Inspector would
often see irregularities without being told. Her own instinct would
enlighten her: I think that is one thing in her favour.... In cases
where the law had no power to enforce alterations, frequently the Woman
Inspector has by gentle arguments and reasoning caused the employer to
see that it was to his own advantage as well as the workers’ comfort to
effectuate the improvement.”[14] _Secondly_, an absence in the great
majority of factories of any woman in a position of authority.
_Thirdly_, in spite of protective laws, a working day and week in which
the standard hours worked by women frequently exceeded those for which
men, in certain great trades, had by means of trade unions secured
recognition from employers. _Fourthly_, a frequent lack of suitable or
even decent and sufficient sanitary accommodation, of cleanliness of a
domestic nature, and of other hygienic requirements, sometimes
injuriously affecting conduct and morals. _Fifthly_, not only low
average and individual wages, but on the part of pieceworkers an
intolerable uncertainty as to what their rates really were; and, for
all, a liability to arbitrary deductions for fines and alleged damages
to work, which often brought earnings below subsistence level.
These are all evils that specially and peculiarly weighed upon women, in
a haphazardly evolved factory system over which they had absolutely no
control. They shared with their fellow-men other frequent, though
certainly not universal, ills: excessive heat in active, and cold in
sedentary, occupations; exposure to inadequately controlled dust, steam,
fumes; badly drained or damp floors; handling of dangerous or injurious
materials; often poor and sometimes very bad general ventilation; lack
of washing conveniences, and means of preparing and taking meals. The
great matters in which men’s risks far exceeded women’s lay in injury by
accidents from dangerous machinery, explosion, and other causes, and
these remain still the largest risks to be reduced by guidance of a
thoroughly skilled Inspectorate, combined with safety control through
workers and employers.
A single illustration may bring home the roughness and irresponsibility
of supervision of girl workers, sometimes associated in the nineties
with all the hardness of factory life. The circumstances were in some
features exceptional, but by no means solitary, in roughness and even
barbarity, as will appear in later pages of this book. It was found, on
investigation of a complaint from an onlooker, that in a large textile
factory an incompetent managing foreman had, nominally as a means of
discipline, turned a great fire-hose on to a large group of young
tenters and weavers. The water, drawn from the mill pond and filthy, was
directed over a partition upon them while they were jammed in a narrow
vestibule in which they took refuge. The girls (of whom forty were
examined by the Inspector) were then turned out on a cold March day,
dripping, to walk in some cases several miles to their homes. The whole
matter was outside the Acts and nothing could be done by the Factory
Department beyond visiting the head office of the mills and drawing
attention to the circumstances.[15] A reprimand to the foreman and his
apology was so far satisfactory, but many years passed by before the
idea of supervision by a woman was considered in textile mills at all.
It required the shock of the Great War to secure provision in a broader
way, as through the Act of 1916, which first brought welfare supervision
and conditions of welfare within administrative control.
The great majority of the earlier complaints related, year after year,
to hours of work and sanitary matters; the former predominated,
especially in the London area, and until the year 1912 complaints of
legal and illegal overtime led in numbers. Complaints relating to
uncertain wages under the Truck Acts and lack of piece-rate particulars
steadily mounted, but this distinct subject merits a separate chapter,
as do also the employment of mothers and dangerous trades. The totals of
all kinds of recorded written complaints (in addition to many verbal
that we received annually) rose from 381 in 1896, to 729 five years
later, and to 2,025 in a further ten years. Confidence grew steadily and
rapidly, until in 1919 a woman organiser could say that women working in
factories of every kind of industry, in the north as in the south,
strongly and “passionately” call for visits of Lady Inspectors.
Long hours of work, then, at the outset of our career were the greatest
trial for working women—with home duties claiming much of their strength
in most instances. The ordinary working day generally took what the
Factory Acts allowed, and in the main still allow, although for at least
the past ten years hours of employment have fallen to reasonable limits,
not through amendment of the law, but through movement of public
opinion, growing strength of women’s organisation, and commonsense of
many employers. In textile factories for young persons and women these
hours were, from Monday to Friday, ten, and on Saturday six and a half.
In non-textile factories the hours might be respectively ten and a half,
and seven and a half on Saturday.[16] A spell of work in textile
factories could not exceed four and a half hours, and in non-textile
factories five hours, without at least half an hour for a meal. In the
latter case firms often found it convenient to work two five-hour spells
with a break at midday of one hour, and on Saturday an unbroken spell of
five hours. The heavy burden of labour on this basis was a perennial
source of complaint from women and girls for which there was no remedy
in the Factory Acts, and was a cause of anxiety and regret to the Women
Inspectors, until the pressure of wartime production proved its
ineffectiveness for increasing output.
We must also bear in mind that the legal hours in unorganised industries
were frequently and widely exceeded.
A liberal allowance was made in the Acts for overtime in many non-
textile industries and processes.[17] In such cases overtime could, if
notified to the Inspector, be used on forty-eight occasions in the year
(reduced in 1901 to thirty occasions) for an additional two hours. This
applied, until amended by the Act of 1895, to young persons as well as
women. From 1896 onwards, the scandalous length of a fourteen-hours’ day
on forty-eight days in the year no longer legally overtaxed young
workers of fourteen years and upwards.[18] Elasticity in the law for the
causes allowed appeared reasonable at first sight, but what was
authorised as an exception became under stress of competition a
principle, and one has sympathy with the young woman who said, with a
chorus of approval from her fellow-workers, to the first Woman
Inspector, “The overtime exception just spoils the Factory Act!” Equally
readily did a fellow-feeling rise for the workgirl who asked, “What sort
of half-holiday it was that began at four o’clock in the afternoon?” In
_illegal_ overtime the bad habit was continued for years, and many raids
and devices were necessary to overcome it. Dual employment of women in a
combined retail shop and workshop was for long a source of excessive
hours. Thus, when they had finished the legal day in the workshop, they
might have to serve in the shop until late at night. This dual
employment was not limited to the normal daily period lawful in a
workshop for women until after the passing of the Act of 1901.
Inspectors had to watch overstrain of this kind helplessly for years—
where they could not move an employer to see the harm it was doing. The
case of the little thirteen and fourteen-year-old “matchers” in
dressmaking establishments had to wait for effectual remedy from another
source.
A complaint we received in 1903 brought to light extreme, but by no
means unprecedented, overstrain of a little girl of fourteen, legally a
young person. She “was engaged to clean and sweep the workrooms, run
errands, match ribbon and silks at shops, and generally do work required
of young apprentices in the trade; in addition, however, she cooked the
occupiers’ meals, including supper; did the work of the house; arriving
at the workshop first in the morning to light fires and ‘tidy up,’ she
did not leave till 11 p.m., and appeared utterly worn out.”[19]
In the early years the impetus of our endeavours to repress excessive
hours was, at times, almost checked by a possible consequence. Portable
articles of manufacture could easily be, and often were, sent home with
the worker at the close of the legal day, and all the more easily in
trades and quarters where there was legal and legitimate “outwork” by
non-factory workers. This evil grew to considerable proportions, until
the law was strengthened so as to make this evasion more difficult. It
was really rooted in starvation wages, and eventually the advent of
Trade Boards removed most of the incentive to this insidious mode of
“sweating.”[20] It was often extremely difficult for the wage earner on
a narrow margin to risk losing an immediate addition to her wage (even
if earned by excessively long hours), through co-operating with the
Inspector by giving evidence as to long hours at home. This co-operation
was essential, as the Inspector’s entry into the home did not rest on
the same powers as entry into the factory. Yet many successful
prosecutions were taken in serious cases. For example, in 1911, a girl
of fifteen, working for a feather manufacturer, after working 8.30 a.m.
to 7 p.m. in the workshop, took work home, and worked 8 p.m. to 11 p.m.;
or a girl knotted “lancer” feathers, taken home, from 7 p.m. to 1 a.m.,
and from 5 a.m. next morning until she went for her day in the
factory.[21] Here and in many other places the girl was compelled to do
extra work in order to earn enough to live.
In certain processes (making preserves from fruit, preserving or curing
fish, making condensed milk) overtime was legal to the extent of a
fourteen-hours’ day on no less than ninety-six days in the year, until
the Act of 1895 reduced the figure to sixty days. The “gutting, salting,
and packing of fish immediately on arrival in the fishing-boats” was
altogether outside regulation by the Acts, whether for hours or
sanitation—for all workers, not excepting children. By the Act of 1901
children received the protection of the Acts as regards hours of
employment in this industry as in others. In 1910 at Lowestoft some
women attempted a revolt against late night hours, but without success.
Again, at Grimsby in 1911, a group of very young women struck against
hours that were usually sixteen in the twenty-four. They were obliged to
return to work, as the employer, who also employed them at other
stations on the East Coast, pointed out that they had broken their
contract and could claim neither wages nor return fares to their homes.
At length, when a record catch of herring at Yarmouth had brought the
workers’ endurance to an end, a limit of daily and weekly hours was
negotiated by the Factory Inspectors and voluntarily agreed to by the
leading fish-curers. This has, since 1913, lessened the trials of the
hardy fish-curing girls and men. The hours, unlimited during the summer
months—June to September, of workers engaged in the “process of cleaning
and preparing fruit, so far as necessary to prevent the spoiling of the
fruit,” have also been brought within a certain degree of legal control
by an Order of the Secretary of State.[22]
Regulation of hours in laundries followed a tangled course too long to
be told fully here. There was, in 1895, within and without that trade,
great opposition to any control whatsoever on account of the special
character of the work and its relation to the community, only half-
developed as it was from domestic to factory status, and closely
dependent on conservative household arrangements. This led to a loose
and ineffective form of limitation of hours in the Act of 1895. The
elasticity of the governing section immediately appeared to give
sanction to the late hours and long days of work, “hitherto regarded as
unnecessary evils tolerated in an unregulated industry.... The fourteen-
hours’ day met with outbursts of indignation from women, who would ‘like
to see how men would stand fourteen-hours of this work in heat and
steam.’”[23] Packers and sorters alone benefited by a net reduction in a
weekly total of hours that had for them often exceeded seventy hours.
Sixty hours became the normal legal period, augmented, however, in
seasons of pressure by permissible overtime to sixty-six hours. And
these hours might be compressed into five instead of six days in the
week, and could even extend, on a single day, from 8 a.m. to 11.30 p.m.
The amending and consolidating Act of 1901 made no improvement in these
hours, but in 1903 I was able to give the first account of a new and
hopeful feature, in the “steady growth of a strong section of employers
who have set their minds on inaugurating a more rational system of
employment in conformity with ordinary factory hours.”[24] This alone,
the employers claimed, in views ably expressed in a new periodical, _The
Power Laundry_, would raise the standards of work and workers. Very
considerable improvement followed from the Act of 1907. Thus, in
laundries, as in textile factories a hundred years earlier, the first
determined efforts towards reform sprang from an enlightened section of
employers—in this instance, however, encouraged by the Inspectors. In
1899 and 1900 they gave much time to discussing these problems with
directors at the head offices of multiple laundries, run by companies.
Efficient management has no doubt found that it could in course of time
compete successfully on shorter hours with less efficient management
working the full legal hours. There has been high social value in the
experiments in hygiene and welfare made by leaders in industry fitted by
their position to secure an effective trial—in the interests not only of
the worker, but also of the whole community.
Without more study of details, so much may suffice to indicate the
public outlook in past days, as expressed in the law so hard to amend,
on the working capacity of human beings in manufacturing industry; and
it may serve to measure the change that has come about in ideas and
habits in these matters.
The movement within industry itself has almost sufficed to bring the
whole problem of hours out of the region of compulsory regulation into
that of a reasonable, voluntary control that ought to be the natural
birthright of workers in a factory system possessing unlimited capacity
for large-scale production by applied power. Christian, after much
suffering with his friend Hopeful in the dungeon of Giant Despair,
remembered the key in his bosom that “could open any lock in Doubting
Castle.” And so they came out to “The King’s Highway” and fared on to
the Shepherds of the Delectable Mountains, whose names were “Knowledge,
Experience, Watchful and Sincere.”
While the illusory belief in a need for exceedingly long hours lasted,
it bore most severely on the weakest manual workers—women and girls.
Although the best hours for any kind of industry can only be reached by
skilled scientific study, the rough-and-ready, if slow, method of
amendment by complaint has had effect. After the Acts of 1891 and 1895
had increased the means of control of illegal overtime, and when an
increased Inspectorate came into activity, the first step was to enforce
the legal limits. Nowhere can a more vivid account be read of the
immense evil of excessive illegal employment, and of the protean forms
of evasion of law, with connivance of intimidated “sweated” workers,
than in the pages by Mr. Lakeman, in the Annual Reports of 1893 and
1894—published at the very time that the tide of complaints began to
flow to Women Inspectors. They also said much to substantiate Mr.
Lakeman’s contentions that “overtime is an evil, socially, morally,
commercially,” weighing upon “a vast aggregation of people slavishly
earning a poor living from hard taskmasters,” particularly in the East
End tailoring trade, where one sweating employer oppressed another below
him, and the worker at the lowest end of the scale was utterly helpless.
The Women Inspectors were the first to be free of a certain handicap in
dealing with the evasion and obstruction that led to concealment of girl
and women workers in lavatories and bedrooms, and they were the first to
be able to unravel tangled threads of evidence by confidential visits to
the women’s own homes. Even in a very extreme case of evasion by locking
of outer gates and darkly shaded windows, a Woman Inspector has been
known to enter the premises before closing time and wait in a dark
corner of the yard, in order to arrive in the workrooms at a suitable
moment for a complete personal observation of the extent of overtime.
So marked was the gain in detection of hidden evils that a proposal was
made in 1895 by some Members of Parliament to bring bedrooms in the same
building with a workshop, used by women or girls, within the scope of
the Factory Acts, and to give the Woman Inspector special power of entry
and inspection. Fortunately, however, the proposal was not accepted, and
peculiar power was not allotted to the Woman Inspector. She was able by
quick observation and action, and use of the Inspectors’ ordinary powers
of entry and investigation, to achieve what was needful in such cases of
concealment; exceptional powers would have been fatal to that
intangible, yet potent, personal influence of an Inspector, which rests
largely on having no more distinction from the ordinary citizen than is
just necessary to effect the work required. Inspectors have always been
able to investigate matters not strictly breaches of the law and yet
needing regulation. In tentatively sending a complaint of such matters,
the Secretary[25] of the Women’s Industrial Council once wrote: “I know
how very much can be done by the tact and personal influence of an
Inspector, and even if the Inspector effects no change, her visit does
afford the workers a sense of protection which is very soothing when
they are feeling aggrieved.”
In manifold ways similar testimony was afforded by communications from
officers of the Women’s Trade Union League, the Legal Advice Bureau for
Working Women, the Industrial Law Committee, and, above all, by the late
Miss Mary MacArthur.
As the work grew in publicity through press reports of prosecutions,
confiding supporters sprang up in many unexpected directions. They
appeared among customers of dressmaking businesses, clergy and district
visitors, club leaders, schoolmistresses of half-time child workers,
doctors, and many others, not to speak of parents anxious to save a
daughter’s health without risking loss of her employment. One of our
longest and most tangled enquiries sprang from a communication from a
casual reader of the _Star_ newspaper.
“Immediately on receipt of a complaint”—from one or other of such
sources, once wrote one Inspector to another—“we made a raid on Saturday
afternoon between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m.,[26] and had a splendid catch, three
rooms full. The man set in the yard to watch for the Inspector _offered_
to let us in ‘to see the housekeeper’; I merely remarked that ‘that
would do very nicely for us,’ and he did not realise his mistake until
we were half-way up the narrow staircase!” The Inspector momentarily
“felt a pang” for the watchman—but a prosecution followed in due course,
and the firm, of European and Transatlantic reputation as modistes and
furriers, were convicted.
The theatrical costume industry, though not large, was one that for many
years exercised the ingenuity and taxed the vigilance of Women
Inspectors—complaints being perennial. Excessive hours, Sunday
employment, illegal homework, overcrowded workrooms, and obstruction of
the Inspector, were reported in 1902–03[27] and at intervals in a
succession of years. In 1911 there was evidence of a deliberate and
organised breaking of the law in the matter of overtime that did not
appear in any other industry. One London occupier, who was prosecuted
twelve times in ten years, was found on three separate occasions in 1911
seriously contravening the law, a typical instance of long hours being:
Friday, 8 a.m. to 12 midnight, followed by 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturday,
with some Sunday employment following. Penalties of £20 and costs on
conviction were evidently not deterrent.[28] In the great majority of
their concentrated attacks upon illegal hours of employment in other
industries Inspectors found that most occupiers tended to capitulate, in
the end, to firmness and persistence in enforcing the legal limits.
Seaside laundries, busy in the summer season, offering residential
employment to laundry girls from inland towns, presented another serious
problem in suppression of evasions of the law.
Suppression of “time-cribbing” (that is, exceeding legal limits by small
instalments)—during prescribed pauses for meals and just before 6 a.m.—
in many textile mills in the North was a task of a detective character,
on a large scale, beyond the small numbers of Women Inspectors, but one
in which they at least took their proportionate share with their men
colleagues. Undoubtedly women’s services in bringing home to the
employer contraventions of legal limits were more peculiarly needed
where proof turned not so much on the exact moment of starting a huge
engine driving machinery in a large mill, but rather on patient
examination of witnesses in their homes as well as the workplace.
By the year 1912 an increasing number of complaints showed a growing
determination on the part of women workers to secure such limitation of
hours as was enforceable under the Factory Acts. One complaint of
excessive hours in a fancy stationery factory disclosed quite an
ordinary, and _legal_, state of affairs: “Fifty girls over eighteen
years of age had been working weekly from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on three
days, from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on two days, and from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on
Saturday, as they were expected to do for from six to eight weeks in the
busy season.” For young pieceworkers the resulting fatigue can easily be
imagined.[29]
In our earlier years of service, complaints of defects in general
sanitation in the factory and workshop were, as already said, fewer than
complaints of excessive or illegal hours of employment. Later on,
especially after voluntary improvement in hours had begun, the workers’
help in matters of general sanitation in the workplace grew in volume
and understanding. The value of these complaints, in bringing the
Inspector to the spot for observation of the concrete facts, was more
direct and immediate than in complaints of hours where evidence was
requisite from the workers. Even a vague complaint such as: “Please I
would like you to call and see what sort of a place the women have to
work in, as it is in an awful condition,” was good, provided the correct
address of the shop was given.
There were many and increasing complaints of lack of messrooms,
wholesome drinking water, seats, cloakrooms, and washing conveniences,
which were outside the Act until 1916. Underground and ill-lighted
workrooms were also the subject of complaint, and these still, in 1921,
await full hygienic control by the Factory Acts. Until the year 1901
even general ventilation of such places could not be secured, and the
result may be seen in a description in 1900 of a low underground
workroom, packed with machinery, the narrow window slits at street level
being the sole means of ventilation, admitting dust from the street,
just where the gas engine was placed. “In the back part, where pallid
women stand at the machines, gas light is always burning. Here again we
are powerless to order means for introduction of tolerable air.”[30]
Ill-ventilated, badly drained, uncleanly or otherwise defective
workrooms, were the subjects of many complaints on hygiene of the
workplace, yet complaints on defects in sanitary accommodation[31] and
extremes of temperature were even more numerous. Lack of means of
heating or failure to use means of heating was increasingly a subject of
complaint down to 1914. Many recalled the words quoted by Miss Abraham
in the Annual Report of 1894: “Is it not possible to compel Mrs. —— to
give her workgirls a fire?... It may really mean death to some of the
girls. I do not know what it will be like to-day, when they get there
with their skirts and feet wet after the snow.” The problem shifted, in
that as in other matters of health, after successive amendments of the
Act had given Inspectors power to intervene more effectually. Increased
stringency of the Acts appeared to extend the number of employers
anxious to improve the conditions of factory life beyond the statutory
minimum. It was not only the employer, but, sometimes even more rapidly,
the workers who found enlightenment in seeing standards improved or
strengthened by legal requirements. At first all the weight and mass of
complaints helping our administration came from the most elementary
needs. And, even there, too many workers were mute, until awakened by
proof that improvement was _possible_. It was only later that the
natural intelligence of the worker could co-operate in building up
larger and more specialised conditions of welfare. Speaking of a great
step onwards in sanitation, Miss Paterson wrote, in 1902, that the
indifference of the employer had resulted in a corresponding
indifference on the part of the worker, who, “acquiescing at first in
conditions which she feels powerless to improve, gradually ceases to
feel them an offence to her. There is no doubt one loses sensitiveness
to indecent arrangements just as surely as to impure air, but the moral
effect in the one case is much the same as the physical effect in the
other.”[32]
Ten years earlier some working men representatives of the Yorkshire
textile industries gave it in evidence before the Royal Commission on
Labour that mill life under the then existing conditions and
organisation of work was “not conducive to ideas of propriety,
gentleness, and nobility.” Against such conditions the Women Inspectors
never ceased to strive, by varied and vigorous attack on insanitary
conditions that blunted perceptions of suitability, and by friendly
appeals to employers that sometimes met with excellent response.
Sometimes, again, action had to be taken against indescribably bad
conditions that were obviously a legacy from mediæval standards, by the
indirect method of laying an information against the occupier of the
factory for effluvia in hot spinning rooms, before the law provided for
direct attack on the ground of the unsuitability of the provision made.
In a case that I took, in 1896, against a Limited Liability Company in
Lancashire, after repeated written warning to the management, one of the
directors appeared in court to say they had not realised the state of
affairs in the mill. After a long hearing, the magistrates asked me to
meet the directors out of court, with their solicitor, which I did (the
Inspector in charge of the district accompanying me), in the gilded
council chamber of the municipal authority. The dignified group of
directors asked me then to “take the chair,” and we rapidly came to a
conclusion, as to the necessary constructive work, that satisfied the
local sanitary authority as well as myself.
Sometimes a local authority would act vigorously on receipt of notice of
such defects from a Factory Inspector, one asking for more
notifications, another inviting conference as to other mills, and they
were most ready to move where they had not themselves to take the
primary initiative against fellowtownsmen. A single illustration may be
given in the case (by no means the worst of its kind) of a large old
textile mill, where local authorities, acting on our notice, took up
such matters with increasing thoroughness. “Dark, unventilated
conveniences, used indiscriminately by men and women, opened directly
off hot spinning rooms.... No attempt to secure privacy was made, the
doors were without fastenings ... the whole connected, not with a drain,
but a huge cesspool—a state of things more injurious to morals and
health can scarcely be imagined. The amount of accommodation was
seriously inadequate, besides being unsuitable and unhealthy.”[33] There
was an element of hope in spite of the overwhelming amount of work to be
done, in that most of the very worst conditions of this kind were found
in the oldest industries and factories, such as Lancashire, Yorkshire,
Staffordshire Potteries, and the Black Country, where the blunting of
perceptions had been longest at work. This factor checked our occasional
feeling of despondency at often finding the most barbarous conditions
where trade union organisation was at its highest strength. Incidentally
it at once confirmed the Women Inspectors in thinking that they really
had a new mission as well as a more enduring place in the guardianship
of women in industry. Even although this matter of sanitary conveniences
was but an elementary one, yet it was fundamental, and the Women
Inspectors were only too anxious to clear the way for their more
progressive and difficult work in respect of health and physical fitness
of the women and girls expressly allotted by the Home Office to their
care.
The legal provisions for the sanitation of the workplace are complex;
the meagre basis of law on which we had to build at first, and a few of
the results secured, can only be slightly indicated.
When we began our work there was no definition in the law of what
constituted overcrowding of a workroom, and only on proof (a difficult
matter) of actual danger or injury to health of the persons employed
could any abatement of overcrowding be enforced. Some of the worst
examples were found in country towns and in attic workrooms, often used
as bedrooms. Miss Paterson cited a case in 1894 where only 91 cubic feet
of space was allowed per person in a room with a roof 6 feet 4 inches in
height. Overcrowding was always rare in factories, however, and
complaints chiefly led us to cases of crowded floor space, not
definitely illegal. For general _ventilation_, as distinct from
mechanical exhaust for dust, gases, vapours, and other impurities
generated by the work, there was no legal provision before 1901, and to
this question in its connection with lighting, heating, and cleanliness
I will presently revert. There was no provision at all touching
maintenance of a _reasonable temperature_ before the Act of 1895. The
provision then made was quickly found defective, and we had to wait
until 1901 for powers to enforce means of heating that did not interfere
with purity of the air. _Drainage_ of workroom floors liable to become
wet could not (except under a special clause in the Act of 1895
affecting laundries only) be enforced before the Act of 1901. Power to
determine what was _sufficient and suitable sanitary accommodation_ by
an order of the Secretary of State was first provided for by the Act of
1901. This had no legal force where local sanitary authorities—with
widely varying standards—had adopted certain powers to regulate the
matter under the Public Health Acts. In 1903 such an order was first
made, based on the experience and recommendations of the Women
Inspectors. This order gradually set the standard frequently adopted by
local authorities, but still, in 1921, this remains merely a voluntary
matter in the majority of sanitary districts outside Scotland. “The new
rules are just coming into force here,” said one working woman
correspondent to an Inspector, in 1903; “they give us just what we
need.”[34] In the previous years “a rain of resolutions and petitions”
reached my office from organised working women, which demonstrated that
working women were, to use their own words, “most ardently favourable in
respect of the draft order of the Home Secretary” just referred to, “so
that decent and satisfactory arrangements may be completed and the hands
of Inspectors strengthened in the discharge of duty.”[35] As regards
_cleanliness_ of the workplace, that universal need, there has been
since 1878 an absolute requirement in the forefront of the Act that
every factory shall be “kept in a cleanly state.” The duty of periodical
cleansing by lime-washing (or other prescribed methods) of walls,
ceilings, etc., has too often been read as covering the whole ground,
and methodical and regular cleansing of floors and benches, by moist as
well as dry methods, has always been a subject to which Women Inspectors
have had largely to devote their powers of persuasion.
The provision of _drinking water_—a fundamental need of human beings
engaged in physical labour, and a subject of frequent complaint from
1894 onwards—was left solely to regulation by local sanitary
authorities, until an order was made in 1917, under powers given by the
Factories and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1916. This secured, at
last, that an order requiring a conveniently accessible supply of
wholesome drinking water could be enforced in every factory or workshop
employing twenty-five or more workers. The _lighting_ of factories and
workshops, whether natural or artificial, has never yet been generally
regulated by any of the Acts from 1878 to 1916, although there are many
references to it in our published reports from 1897 onwards. In 1911 the
special Report on “Illumination in Factories,” by Mr. D. R. Wilson,[36]
ultimately brought the matter under general review, and in January,
1913, a Committee was appointed by the Home Secretary; this was to
enquire into and report on the conditions necessary for the adequate and
suitable lighting (natural and artificial) of factories and workshops,
having regard to the nature of the work carried on, protection of the
eyesight of workers employed, and the various forms of illumination.[37]
Miss Squire, who had given much attention and study to defective
lighting and its remedies in factories, was made a member of this
Committee in November, 1920.[38] The bearing of this problem of lighting
on safety and accident prevention as well as on health has been long in
receiving the attention that it deserved from the British legislature.
In 1897, I drew attention to its recognition by French, Belgian, German,
and Austrian legislatures. That the workers felt an intense need of
skilled attention to the question is evident from a letter of complaint
in 1909 which besought an Inspector to “give a call unawares and see the
black holes of workrooms we have to try and work in, with scarcely any
light.... Please say nothing about receiving this letter, but act on its
contents, and do for us what we need in the way of proper light and
ventilation.”
Probably the most important of the early contributions of Women
Inspectors to improved sanitation in the factory lay in their
insistence, year after year, on the close relation between good general
ventilation, cleanliness (including freedom from dirt, dust, effluvia,
and organic impurities), lighting and temperature, and on the value of
exact tests and standards in these matters. Time after time phthisis was
found to be rampant in particular factories where anæmic, poorly
nourished girls worked long hours, in light sedentary work, and at
dainty white work, under combined defects in cleanliness, ventilation,
lighting, heating. In such places, before the days when canteens and
playing-fields were considered suitable adjuncts to factory life, the
steady undermining of health that went on was really greater than in
many a factory under special rules for dangerous processes, or supplied
with good exhaust ventilation for injurious dust. In such instances the
co-operation of local Medical Officers of Health under the Public Health
Authorities, both directly and in their reports, was invaluable. As Dr.
Niven in his Annual Report for Manchester in 1902 observed: “Unless the
workshop is free from dust no mode of ventilation can be quite
satisfactory. The first requisite, then, is cleansing, carried out in a
proper manner. Ventilation must be considered in reference to each
individual case, but cleansing is a universal requirement as to which
definite rules can be laid down ... it is imperative in the interests of
health that cleansing should be by wet sweeping.”
The extra need of fresh, pure air for maintenance of their efficiency at
work is a marked constitutional feature in women and girls, and their
sensitiveness to cold and draughts is proportionate also to the
sedentary character of much of their work. The Women Inspectors were
thus rapidly brought up against the interdependent problems of
artificial lighting and heating. Fine garment-making and embroidery call
both for good lighting and for freedom from presence of coal-dirt and
smuts in the air, whether admitted by open windows or by combustion
inside the workroom. When we began our inspection, closed windows and
absence of fire in the grates was the rough-and-ready way of securing
“clean” air for delicate fabrics, while warmth had to be secured chiefly
by using gaslight burners of the bat’s-wing type, as a means of
maintaining a temperature in which nimble fingers could carry on their
skilled work. Later, from January 1, 1896, the unhooded gas stoves—some
of the crudest type—fitted in many workshops and smaller factories in
consequence of the first legal requirement in the Act of 1895 that
“adequate measures shall be taken for securing and maintaining a
reasonable temperature in each room in which any person is employed”
constituted strong new arguments for powers to require good general
ventilation. Even so dangerous a gas as carbon monoxide, produced in
appreciable quantities by some of these stoves, not being an impurity
“generated in the course of the manufacturing process,” could not be
held legally subject to the provision for exhaust ventilation.[39] Nor
was there any legal remedy until the Act of 1901 embodied a requirement
that the measures taken for securing a reasonable temperature should not
interfere with the purity of the air.
A great deal of work by the Women Inspectors in support of cleanliness
has directly furthered maintenance of good natural light in workplaces.
Not only have they pressed for regular cleansing by wet methods of
floors, but also for the same treatment of windows and skylights; and
the attention of occupiers was constantly drawn to the value of such
aids as reflectors, luxfer prisms, and the like, in mitigating darkness
or prolonging natural light in underground workrooms. Innumerable
confidential complaints from workers furthered our activity in this
direction. “In all the rooms of one badly lighted factory the windows
were so dirty that ... artificial light had to be used during the
day.... The gas with old flickering bat’s-wing burners being always in
use, large numbers of the girls complained of headache and weariness.
This they attributed to the bad light more than to the impure air.”[40]
It was about 1903, after the amended provisions regarding temperature
and ventilation had had time to work, that women began to send
increasingly definite complaints: “Nearly all the workers suffer from
colds ... now the present gas fire, whenever there is a down draught,
drives into the workroom poisonous carbonic acid gas.”
The discomfort of low temperatures was intensified in some occupations,
such as aerated water works, where floors, usually of concrete or stone,
are liable to be very wet, and bottles and siphons alike cold to handle.
Bottle washers got some comfort where the water was hot, but liability
to soaked garments aggravated suffering from cold rooms in wet places.
Extremes of temperature in the workplace at the other end of the scale,
rising to 100° F. or 110° F., or even higher, are specially connected as
a rule with the nature of the processes, and sometimes increase the
risks of dangerous and injurious industries, especially where lead is
present, as in certain pottery processes. There the problem is to limit
the heat without injuring the process. In other cases the heat results
from the work, and can be mitigated without injuring it. In laundries,
for example, as a mother once put it, young girls can get “all faded”
through unregulated heat and laborious work; and sometimes sunlight
streaming through inadequately shielded skylights, say, in pressing-
rooms of clothing factories, or in jam factories, causes temperatures of
96° F. and numerous cases of fainting amongst the girls. Painting or
whitewashing of such skylights, where blinds are not practicable, was
advised in mitigation of the discomfort.
It is mournful to contemplate the amount of slow injury to the human
system, insidiously at work and showing its effects in disturbed
physiological functions and malnutrition, sometimes with resultant
desire for stimulants. This must have long handicapped not only the
workers—vainly appealing for removal of half-understood defects—but also
the efficiency in industry and the prosperity of manufacturers. The old
British neglect of scientific control of ordinary hygiene in the
workplace has to answer for much. Even when the nation was apprised of
the relation of disease to dirt, in environment, including air, and lack
of means for maintaining personal cleanliness—how slow-moving was action
to apply the knowledge effectively, through laws for protection of the
health of the industrial workers! The relation of disease and accidental
injury to darkness and to unnecessary use of defective artificial
lighting, an old problem, is only beginning to come into serious
consideration at the close of the period covered by this book.
Along with recent advance in these matters we have to reckon the
benefits accruing from the recent rational reduction in hours, and from
development of other fundamentals of welfare—before all, the means of
partaking of good food in many works.
It was significant that the Women Inspectors, as a branch of the Factory
Department specially charged with the duty of interpreting and
responding to the needs of women workers, received throughout their
service certain appeals and complaints on questions of conduct, or
conditions in the factory essentially affecting morals. These appeals on
matters not directly under the Factory Acts were never numerous, though
markedly increasing in the last few years before the War, when women
workers were growing bolder in self-expression and self-help. The
relative smallness in their number was balanced by their intensity.
From about 1896 onwards, the mere possibility of the visit to any
factory of a Woman Inspector coming from headquarters in Whitehall—
strongly bent on sanitary reforms connected with increased cleanliness,
fresh air, light in the factory, physical fitness of the worker,
suitability in lavatory arrangements—had a wide and marked effect. She
gave a new meaning to the technical requirements of the law by her
steady insistence on the value of responsible superintendence of working
conditions. The very concentration of the Women Inspectors in a team-
work that could be applied in any area or centre, or to any particular
problem in any industry, tended to co-ordinate the work of the whole
Department in these technical things, as well as to unify the outlook.
Employers, sympathetic to advance, were helped to come into contact,
sometimes at their own express wish being put in communication with each
other. Undoubtedly this whole movement, linked as it was with a little
united band of enthusiasts, moving up and down the very dusty ways of
industrial life, did much to hasten improvement also in things affecting
manners and morals.
“Why have I never had a visit from a Lady Inspector before?” was a
question from an employer that indicates a sentiment expressed more and
more frequently as the Women Inspectors increased in weight of
experience. Nothing, however, excelled in importance the confidence
engendered between the woman worker and the woman Factory Inspector
through the successful steady rooting out of abuses. In 1902 a girl, who
had given evidence for Miss Squire two years earlier in a prosecution
for illegal employment, wrote to her of a criminal assault made on her
by a fellow-workman on a dark winter morning in the factory, and she got
help and advice, though not under the Factory Act. At such wide
intervals as 1900, 1904, 1907, 1912, I see in our published reports
records of complaints of brutal conduct by managers, foremen,
overlookers, towards young girls. Even an employer in a spinning mill
was implicated in one of the earliest of these. “It seems scarcely
credible that nowadays (1900) little doffers should be knocked down by
grown men, violently struck on head and shoulders ... yet there was
evidence of little half-starved, undersized creatures who had suffered
at the hands of a burly overlooker and a tall imposing member of the
firm ... too strong to be doubted. When tackled with such conduct and
warned, neither denied the charge.” Another complaint, in 1912,
disclosed similar conditions. The visiting Inspector, again Miss Squire,
chanced while half-screened by a pillar in a workshed, to witness an
example of such brutality, when a foreman seized, shook, and flung from
him a young girl. She brought this, with various serious contraventions
of the Act that she found in the factory,[41] before the managers, and
“shamed them into taking action to bring about real improvement in the
conditions.” Cases of drunkenness and abusive language and complaints of
immorality were similarly dealt with and improvements secured. In some
cases the police, investigating immorality of an employer towards
workgirls, sought our aid. In other directions, employers would seek our
guidance in controlling moral risks. All such occasions afforded a
welcome opportunity to the Inspector for giving information to the
occupier about the well-attested gain of wisely chosen, trained women’s
superintendence in matters of hygiene and welfare in the factory. In one
noteworthy instance the discovery by Miss Martindale of some oppressive
treatment of little half-timers in a great textile mill in Belfast led
the active-minded manager to ask her whether he could find a trained
woman to carry on, daily, in the mill such work as she had done at a
single visit. The woman was found, and she did much for the health and
welfare of men, women, and children there.
In 1896 it was first recorded that letters of thanks from workers for
improvements effected by the Inspectors were coming in, sometimes
without any clue to the writers. And an Inspector would be stopped in
the street by a group of girls, who had previously complained verbally
during an inspection, to say how much better things were going since
“fining had been reduced”; or a railway porter lifting an official bag
into the train would give a word of thanks on behalf of a sister or
friend whose overtime had been reduced. Or one workgirl confiding a
hardship in her workplace to another girl casually met outside, would be
told to “come along to the Lady Inspector who helped me a year ago,”
and, investigation and prosecution following, would set in train a
similar series of remedial activities.
Ireland had, as in so many other things, special ways of her own in
appealing to and thanking the Inspector for aid needed and rendered:
“Please ... would you kindly see to the heating of our Room ... the
stitching department is not ventilated, it is terrible fusty you would
never want a headache if you had to work in it ... thanking you in
anticipation. We have proved your worth before, every worker knows you
are a lady.” Another hopeful set of complainants, who wrote of lack of
any means of heating in a draughty finishing loft, signed themselves,
“Yours expectant,” and the Inspector, Miss Martindale, on her arrival
was greeted with: “Thank God, you’ve come.” Or, again, another wrote
thanks and pled for continuance of her watchfulness: “Thank you, mem,
for coming to X. They are doing what is right since you were here if you
only knew how much good you done ... please mem be sure and watch
them.”[42]
In England the expression of such thanks was generally more impersonal,
but not less grateful and confident. One letter I received stands out in
my memory always, in its prompt response to investigation of a complaint
of overtime by Miss Paterson. “It is no use to send an Inspector to ask
the girls questions, for they depend on their living and dare not say
much; but I must say that the lady sent was just the sort of friend a
dressmaker requires.”[43] Miss Tuckwell wrote in 1897, as Honorary
Secretary of the Women’s Trade Union League, that the confidence of the
factory women was “based on the fact that their representations are
received and distributed by a woman, and by women enquired into and
redressed”; “Our Women Inspectorate has adapted itself exactly to
English needs, and, as a Yorkshire workgirl remarked, ‘We are well
suited by the Lady Inspectors.’”[44]
In all this part of the history of administration of the Factory Acts
one sees conclusive evidence of the very great need there was of
intuitive insight and extraordinary persistence in probing or tracking
down ills peculiarly affecting industrial women and girls that, as a
whole, were never laid bare until the women had access to a woman in
authority armed with legal powers to initiate the remedies. These ills
afflicting women formed in some respects a parallel to the earlier
though grosser abuse of child labour at the opening of the nineteenth
century, and recall the words of Mr. Cooke-Taylor:
“It is of great and increasing importance that that story be kept in
memory; that it should never be suffered to become extinct; as a
pitiful ... warning against the preposterous doctrine ... that human
affairs can be entrusted to impulses of mere cupidity without shocking
and degrading consequences.”[45] It is difficult now, even for the Women
Inspectors, to reconstruct in the mind the barbarous and grinding
conditions that they were called to disclose and to help to transform.
The woman worker was “subject to” mechanical power, and it needed a
labour of love to help her to free herself.
In nothing does this appear more clearly than in the sphere of wages,
touched on in the following chapter.
CHAPTER III
WOMEN’S WAGES AND THE TRUCK ACTS; THE PIECEWORKER AND HER PAY
“Tell me what shall thy wages be?”
Long before the beginnings of the modern factory system, and centuries
before the idea of applying standard requirements for health, safety, or
limitation of hours in factories and workshops had arisen, Parliament
had recognised the need and right of the worker to receive full payment
of the wages he had agreed to work for, in current coin of the realm—“in
true and lawful money.”[46] It also recognised his right to spend those
wages as and where it best suited him.
The law relating to Truck[47] was consolidated quite early in the growth
of the factory system by the Act of 1831. This Act, and the Act of 1887,
which first brought in the very necessary aid of the Factory Inspector
to enforce its provisions and strengthened the law,[48] are still in
force, together with the Act of 1896, which first regulated fines and
various deductions from wages, making them illegal unless in pursuance
of a definite agreement or “contract” with every worker affected.
In 1908 a Departmental Committee, appointed by the Home Secretary,
reported on the great need, then generally recognised, for amending and
consolidating these Acts, and a minority of the Committee recommended
entire prohibition of fines and deductions regulated by the Act of 1896.
In the same year there was more than usual activity, with markedly
successful results, on the part of the Women Inspectors in investigating
and prosecuting for contraventions of the Acts. From about 1897 onwards
they had gradually acquired a unique acquaintance throughout the United
Kingdom with the human results of uncertain and low wages, peculiarly
oppressive to women and girls, by their investigation of complaints, by
long-drawn-out legal proceedings, by special enquiries into homework,
and into payments of wages in overvalued groceries and other goods
instead of money. Of a packet of tea given in place of hard-earned coin,
the outworker would say: “And the tea indeed it is not good, it is not
worth putting water on.” “A pair of thin elastic-sided boots which
constituted the ‘wages’ paid to a worker, who, according to the practice
of the country-side (Donegal, 1897), generally went barefoot, were
objects of longing” to the Inspector as “articles of evidence.”[49]
The Women Inspectors have also had carried to the High Courts of England
and Ireland five out of the six appeals, on points of law under the
Truck Acts, taken at the instance of the Factory Department since
1896.[50] Facts and details that came out at their prosecutions in
police and sheriff courts passed into the public press. There, and
through published official reports, it became well known in Parliament
and elsewhere that wages below subsistence level afflicted women in many
factories, as well as in homework. Various voluntary committees pressed
the matter forward, and the Inspectors’ evidence, published year after
year in Annual Reports, strengthened the Anti-Sweating Movement from
about 1904 to 1906. Public opinion was stirred afresh by the Sweated
Industries Exhibition of 1906, and eyes were opened to evils almost
forgotten since the work and report of the Select Committee of the House
of Lords in 1888–90.
The evidence of the Women Inspectors given to the 1908 Committee on
Truck was extensive as to the evils affecting women and conclusive as to
the need of amendment of the law. In the same year the Select Committee
on Homework referred repeatedly to the assistance they had obtained from
“so experienced and competent an observer as Miss Squire, of the Home
Office.”[51] The passing of the Trade Boards Act of 1909 followed very
shortly on their Report. It provided for payment by employers of a
minimum rate of wages “clear of all deductions” in certain industries
specified in a schedule to the Act, and in others to be brought in by
Provisional Order where the “rate of wages prevailing ... is
exceptionally low”; and Trade Boards were set up for the fixing of such
minimum rates. This Act provided for minimum time rates and for general
minimum piece rates, and, on the whole, has secured as solid a general
assent from the community as did the Elizabethan provision in earlier
times for protection of the poorest labourer from starvation pay “both
in times of scarcity and in times of plenty.”
The Act was administered, not by the Factory Department (as was proposed
in 1908 by the Select Committee on Homework), but by the Board of Trade
(later by the Ministry of Labour). It thus only enters into the scope of
this study because so closely linked with the pioneering work of the
Women Inspectors when they really _tested_ the Truck Acts and the
Section in the Factory Act for securing to women pieceworkers (in non-
textile industries) the protection of written “particulars” of their
work and wages. It also had a striking effect in steadily sweeping away
many of the deductions from low wages with which we were specially
concerned. The beneficial movement was carried decisively forward by the
special wages conditions administratively enforced for women during the
War.
The fundamental elements in wages problems are in some ways simpler and
homelier for everyone than problems of scientific hygiene in the
factory. Most of us realise very well how much our freedom and happiness
depend on having, in our recompense for labour, a margin for spending,
above what is just necessary to keep us going, and on being able to
compute definitely from week to week what the recompense will be. We do
not need technical knowledge to develop insight for that. We can all
readily grasp the truth in those words of Adam Smith: “The property
which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation
of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable,” and “no
society can surely be flourishing and happy of which the greater part of
the members are poor and miserable.” And thus, when the miseries of
fraudulent payment in goods or of excessive and uncertain deductions
from wages, or of sweated wages, are brought out, it is clear to
everyone that regulation must be attempted with the least possible
delay.
As regards the grosser abuses of payment in goods, the law had become
generally effective for the principal wage earners in organised factory
industry before 1893. For women outside the factory system, these forms
of Truck were then and much later to be found in certain homework
industries in directions to be considered presently. And in the least
organised factory industries enforced purchase and raffling of articles
“damaged” in process of manufacture, and many oppressive forms of
deductions and charges on slender wages, were widespread.
Although, fortunately, laws relating to wages—that is, Truck Acts,
Particulars Clause, Trade Boards Act—were and are applicable to men and
women alike, it is evident that, until strengthened by help from
Inspectors of their own sex in the Factory and Trade Boards Departments,
and by recent development of their own powers through leading women
organisers, women have proved but poor bargainers for themselves, and
weak in securing their own welfare in matters of wages. This weakness
was, no doubt, closely linked with their artificial exclusion from many
well-paid industries and processes suitable for them, which intensified
their competition for available employment. The published reports of the
Women Factory Inspectors down to 1914 remain an historical record of the
depredations on their wages that the women suffered, and of the pitiful
smallness of their average earnings—the details being, as viewed from
the standpoint of later improvements, almost staggering. Their “property
in their own labour,” outside a few well-organised industries and often
even in fine-looking factories was, when we began, neither “sacred” nor
“inviolable,” and, indeed, in many places, barely existed. Although the
Women Inspectors were at work to track out and deal with contraventions
in “hard cases,” yet the range of area, processes, and numbers dealt
with by them in factories, workshops, and among outworkers is so wide,
and the figures were so carefully compared with those given by
manufacturers themselves, that their reports make a decisive addition to
the evidence contained in the Board of Trade Wage Census of 1886 and
1906. The wage levels for women in their chief industries, given in this
census, low as they were, were undoubtedly somewhat higher than in fact,
and only covered returns from the firms responding to an invitation to
disclose information in their wage books. Even if the average wage per
week for women over eighteen years of age in non-textile industries was,
as indicated by the wage census, about 12s. 11d.,[52] those of an
immense number of women employed inside the factory did not rise above
7s. to 8s., out of which came deductions for disciplinary fines, charges
for cotton, needles, etc., use of power, standing-room, cleaning of the
factory, damage, or purchase of damaged articles, hospitals, supply of
hot water for tea; so that for many young women 5s. to 6s. a week was
nearer the mark. To such numerous workers information that an average of
12s. to 14s. was paid to women in their industry would have meant
nothing. It was their own individual daily or weekly wage that was the
reality to them. The Act of 1896 required, as already said, that a
definite contract must be made by any employer with his workers before
deductions could be made from wages; other terms could be specified in a
notice affixed in the workplace. Among other conditions the deductions
had to be fair and reasonable, the acts or omissions which entailed a
deduction had to be specified in the contract, and particulars of any
deduction actually imposed had to be given to the worker at the time.
Even when the Inspector had severely pruned the contract, deductions for
such things as gas, needles, sweeping, sick clubs, made a serious
inroad; a rate of 6s. 6d. would emerge as 5s. 5d., of 7s. 6d. as 6s.
5d., of 12s. as 9s. 9d. for a week’s work that might legally be sixty
hours.[53]
“Girls’ wages are as a rule so pitiably low as to leave no margin,” said
Miss Squire in 1898, “for making good any damage to work entrusted to
them, while the rapidity necessary in order to reach the standard
required of workers—paid by the quantity turned out—increases the risk
of damage.”
In that year a letter reached me from the Leader of a Factory Girls’
Club in London about one of its members, employed in decorated sheet
metal work, who “looked thoroughly miserable and overworked.” The girl
had been set to work, at 8s. a week, on a heavy “grooving” machine in
place of a man paid 28s. a week. A visit from the Inspectors was
desired, and the girl said they would find “plenty things to find fault
with.” Although attention was promptly and closely applied to these
other things, I had to explain to the Club Leader that the Factory
Inspector was not concerned with even the slenderest wages, except in so
far as touched by the Truck Acts, unless the pieceworkers should desire
to submit a claim for extension to them of the Particulars Clause in the
Factory Act.
In the same year an instance of deductions for short quantity from girls
soldering tins containing perishable goods, being engaged, not on
piecework, but on a fixed weekly wage, again illustrates both the
smallness of wages and the subjection to heavy pressure. Here the girls
rarely (some never) received full wage, 1d. being deducted for every ten
trays (twenty-four tins on each) short of the total required daily,
which was 190 trays containing 4,560 tins. The girls complained that
this total exceeded what their best efforts could produce. “It is
slavery. We do not dawdle. We are all for scrambling for fear of losing
our money.” Miss Squire examined the books for eleven workers during
five weeks, and none reached the total required, although two once came
within two trays of it. Rewards were given for care and good work and
were set off against “short quantity.” Thus from a wage of 8s. 9d., 300
trays being declared short, 2s. 6d. was deducted, and 1s. added for good
work, resulting in a net wage of 7s. 3d. The Inspector found in another
factory under the same company a woman whose wages were raised for good
work, who ordinarily sealed 120 to 140 trays daily, and could do 170
trays at a push. Thus the deductions in the first factory were
manifestly unfair and they were refunded after the investigation. The
manager subsequently informed the Inspector that there was no falling
off in number of tins sealed by the girls.[54] In a biscuit factory
labellers, putting labels on four sides and the top of a tin, were paid
at the rate of 1d. for twelve tins; for any one label damaged, 1d. was
deducted, so that twelve tins would then be labelled for nothing.[55]
The Women Inspectors were driven to realise by such experiences that not
merely was starvation pay for women and girls prevalent in many
instances, but that the whole outlook of many employers on their
standard and maximum wages for women was darkened, and these employers
had almost uncontrolled power to fix and alter rates for unorganised
workers. As late as the middle of 1914 Miss Whitworth (Mrs. Drury),
taking evidence for a prosecution, found that a pieceworker, without the
required written particulars, was actually paid for some work in the
week of enquiry, without notice, less than she was paid in the previous
week for the same work. The foreman’s explanation was: “What can one do,
when a girl is earning as much as 15s. a week, but lower the piece
rate.”[56] This was a not unusual attitude throughout our experience up
to the war period. The fact of its existence and the consequences on the
output of the workgirl—faced with the alternatives of earning the same
sum whether on a higher or a lower piece rate, and naturally choosing
the former—may be well seen in Mr. R. H. Tawney’s “Minimum Rates in the
Tailoring Trade.”[57]
Of wholesale clothing factories in Colchester, in 1908, a local leading
manufacturer told an Inspector that he thought 7s. to 8s. would be the
average wage of the girls employed, and her “own observations confirmed
this. Board and lodging cost 7s. a week at the lowest, so it is
obviously impossible for a girl to live unless she is at home.”[58] It
is noteworthy how often this average appeared to rule in various parts
of the country, as one turns over many Annual Reports.
The remarkable thing about this low and limited view of the value of a
woman’s work, which ruled so generally as seriously to depress her own
estimate of its value, was that a sudden alteration in the valuation
occurred immediately there was any failure in punctuality of attendance,
or quantity and quality of output. And yet, sometimes, outside public
opinion, as reflected in the decision of a police court magistrate or a
sheriff, supported the two apparently incompatible estimates.
In a case taken into court in South London, where the contract for
deductions for time lost rendered the worker liable to a fine of 1d. a
minute lost, the information was dismissed on the ground that the
contract was not in general unfairly enforced, although it was shown
that one worker earning 6s. a week was fined 6d. for five minutes lost
and another 4d. for four minutes lost. While the girls were at work the
service was valued at 1½d. an hour, in a week of sixty hours’ work.[59]
In a South London factory, where fining was at the rate of 1d. for any
time lost up to five minutes, and 2d. for more than five minutes, 276
girls out of 500 were fined sums from 4d. to 8d., and the total amount
collected by the firm in this way was £156 in a year. Incidentally
punctuality was not secured here by docking the low and hardly earned
wages of the girls. In many cases the attention drawn to the matter by
Inspectors induced employers to refund deductions that should never have
been made. Heads of firms often gave far too little personal care and
attention to safeguarding their own employees from injustice.[60] In
numerous instances where, after careful investigation in a factory by
the Inspector of the whole effects of the fining system, the matter was
once fully brought to the knowledge of the head of a firm, voluntary
abolition of the system followed. Where it was abandoned in favour of
better methods of discipline, return to the system was unknown. The gain
in efficiency of management was well attested by such employers in their
evidence to the Committee on Truck in 1908.[61]
A contrast appeared frequently between the estimate of value put into an
article by labour expended on it, and of the worker’s share in
responsibility for loss occasioned by any accidental slip of the fast-
moving fingers. In a rubber tyre factory, for example, where the outer
case of the rubber tyre was trimmed—_i.e._, cut neatly along the edges—
by girls, at the rate of 1¼d. a dozen cases, a fine of 1d. was imposed
for each case damaged by the edge being unevenly cut or snipped. The
loss to the employer was indeed reckoned as 2s. 6d.; the loss to the
worker, although only 1d., equalled four-fifths of what she could earn
in an hour’s work.[62] In a safety-pin factory in the West of England,
where only good work was paid for and some waste unavoidable—material
being “weighed out” in lots of 100 gross or 50 gross, and weighed again
when brought in—some exceptionally bad deductions were found. A girl who
had to cap 50 gross of pins for 1s. 3d. was told when she brought the
lot in that she was ¾ pound short, and 2s. 3½d. was deducted from her
weekly wage of 5s. 7d. A married woman bringing in 84 gross of good pins
out of 100 gross booked to her, was charged 2s. for 21 pounds short in
the metal, and instead of receiving 1s. 11½d. for the 84 gross pins,
admittedly well capped, received her pay envelope empty—with a note on
it that she owed ½d. Here the firm, aroused by the miserable conditions
brought to light by the Inspector, voluntarily returned all deductions,
exceeding 5 per cent. off any weekly wage to the workers for the whole
year, and arranged for piecework books with careful entries and for
regular “check-weighing” by the workers.
The number of instances is astounding where, by the aid of the records
required by the Truck Act of 1896, Inspectors were able to track out
preposterous, long-standing “debts” of workgirls to their employers for
“damages” which they could not test or verify themselves, in shirt and
collar and other clothing trades, in pen factories, and other small
metal works; the burden of the system can only be grasped by a careful
study of details in numerous Annual Reports. The difficulties of
successful prosecutions in many bad cases are touched on in Chapter VI.
on legal work. “There were cases in which the worker had remained in
debt for as long as eighteen months on a single batch of collars
machined, gradually paying off by such instalments as her weekly wage of
7s. to 10s. would bear.”[63]
In an Irish linen-weaving factory that I visited with Miss Martindale in
1911 in the course of long negotiations with the Manufacturers’
Association, carried on in the hope of securing voluntary improvements
in harsh contracts regarding damaged work, we found that 65·76 per cent.
of the weavers were fined an average of 8¾d. in one recent week, and
60·5 per cent., an average of 7½d., in another week, six months earlier.
The highest gross average wage was 7s. 2¾d., and the average net wage,
including a so-called time bonus, was 5s. 8½d. The mill was making
little or no profit, and, as I observed at the time, I “never had so
strong an illustration of the truth that thriving manufacture cannot be
built up on the labour of depressed and half-starved workers.” In spite
of warning, the percentage of workers fined there rose yet higher, and
the firm was told that unless there was immediate reform proceedings
must follow. Here and elsewhere I pressed for the institution of method
and application of skill in training the workers, and in this case it
was effectually established with results most satisfactory to the
management, while the number of workers fined fell to 6·9 per cent. In
another weaving shed, where 33 per cent. were fined weekly for cloth
faults, after an Inspector’s visit all fines were abolished “as an
experiment.” The manager in due course wrote that it was an unqualified
success, but that he did not wish his competitors to know, as it gave
him an advantage in getting good weavers.[64]
A great evil, particularly in connection with clothing factories,
developed out of charges for damaged work, in “raffling” in order to
escape the burden of practically enforced purchase by the workers of
garments that they were alleged to have damaged. Even in 1898 factories
were found where this practice had been reduced to a regular system. In
one factory every worker was required or expected to pay 1d. a week to
the foreman towards a fund for paying back to the employee the amount
deducted from her wages for damaged work, receiving in return a ticket
for the raffle by which damaged articles were disposed of week by week.
Three successful prosecutions, taken by Miss Squire in 1905, did
something to check the growth of this practice in Leeds. In each case
the magistrate severely censured the defendants.[65] In 1906 it was
found to be extensively prevalent in Manchester “making-up” factories.
“Leaving aside,” said Miss Paterson, “... the effect on character of
gambling even to so slight an extent, I think it tends to make workers
careless in their work; to make foremen and employers careless about
training good workers, and indifferent to fairness when they assess
damage.”[66] Although compulsory purchase by the worker of damaged work,
illegal as it was, decreased, it was far more difficult to repress the
insidious practice of “giving” the worker or “allowing her” to take
damaged work, for which she had a deduction made from her wages. The
better employers agreed with the Inspector in prohibiting anything of
the kind in their works.
This old evil, of compulsory purchase by the worker of damaged products
of her industry, the damage being due, not only to lack of care, but
sometimes to accident, sometimes to defective material or implements,
sometimes to overpressure or defective training of the worker, appeared
in even the highly organised and relatively well-paid cotton trade,
which had at its own instance been exempted from the scope of the Truck
Act of 1896. Some girls of fourteen and sixteen years left a cotton
factory in 1901 owing to heavy fines for faults in the cloth. On
claiming arrears of wages due, they were each shown a piece of cloth and
told they must take the damaged pieces in lieu of wages. “... Finding
they could make no other terms, they said they would take time to
consider,” and meanwhile wrote to the Inspector, Miss Squire. She
accompanied them in the following week to the factory office, “and the
wages were paid over in coin, the employer finding that the Truck Act,
1831, was not to be lightly set aside.”[67]
Deductions for motive power, used in the manufacturing process, were
often found in our earlier years of inspection, but they had already
begun to die out, and, I think, have long since done so generally. They
were mainly a survival from the time of transition from handicraft to
power-driven industry, and sometimes reflected the hardness of those
days—as when they covered not only cost of fuel and repairs, but wages
also of the man who attended the engine. I made a calculation in the
case of some Lancashire clothing factories in 1897–98 that payment by
the worker of 1d. in the 1s. earned, or 1s. weekly if wages rose above
9s., brought in enough to run the whole power at the workers’ expense,
ownership of the engine remaining with the occupier. Charges or
deductions for cleaning the factory, or parts of it, such as lavatories,
were also a survival from other days when the worker worked in his own
domestic workshop; severe scrutiny by the Inspector of many wage
contracts, and of local practices that were unrecorded in any formal
notice, was necessary to free the worker from the burden of carrying the
occupier’s legal responsibility for keeping his factory in a cleanly
condition. Levies of 1d. a week on every worker in a large factory would
sometimes produce more than the wage of a good charwoman in places where
there was not much evidence of her activity. Even in 1901 the
prosecution of a firm for employing women in the dinner hour gave
publicity, during the hearing, to the details of how women and girls
supplied gratis, the labour, cloths, buckets, etc., necessary to enable
the occupiers of a world-famed textile factory to keep it in the cleanly
state required by the Acts. The conviction did much to “shift the burden
on to the right shoulders.”[68]
The odd topsy-turvy way in which law and administration reacted in the
difficult work of applying the Truck Act was seen by Miss Martindale in
a procession of workers who paraded the streets of Belfast in 1911
carrying boards on which stood in large letters the words: “Down with
the Truck Acts.” This followed our long negotiations with the
Association of Manufacturers (already referred to) in an endeavour to
secure milder contracts regarding deductions for damage. The meagre
results had been embodied, with other rules over which we had no
control, in a notice (drafted by the lawyers to the Association), a copy
of which was handed to each worker. The notices were headed by the
words: “The Truck Act, 1896, requires that a copy of the following terms
and conditions should be handed to every worker.” The “other rules”
included such conditions as instant dismissal of a worker when, in the
opinion of the employer, manager, or overlooker, she had been guilty of
certain acts or defaults, and discharge of workers in any department
without notice or compensation if any of the workers in the factory
strike or decline to work. This blending of incompatible terms could not
be prevented by legal process without amendment of the Act.
Up to the time of the passing of the Truck Act, 1887, and even later, a
common opinion held that deductions from wages in respect of fines were
rendered illegal by the Act of 1831, through its provision that the
entire wages were to be paid in coin. The important decision in
_Redgrave_ v. _Kelly_ (1889), however, established a different
conclusion, and left it so that the question of the reasonableness of
fines could not be raised under that Act. It was chiefly against
uncertainty and unreasonableness in such fines that the Act of 1896 was
aimed. Among the reactions from the very considerable, though
incomplete, degree of control introduced by this Act came the
development, especially in Irish textile factories, of a so-called
“bonus” system, the real meaning of which was in many instances a desire
to “keep clear” of that Act. It appeared in amounts varying from 5 to 20
per cent. of the wage in many and subtle forms; for timekeeping, for
output and equality of piecework, and for amount of wages earned in the
week. Although the bonus seldom seemed to raise the average wage above
the local level, it was treated by the employer as a kind of gift, over
and above wages, and the whole or part was liable to be withheld, in
addition to imposing any specific fine mentioned in the contract or a
deduction for time lost. In a case carried from Petty Sessions to the
High Court in Ireland, _Deane_ v. _Wilson_, a weaver lost 2s. 4d. out of
a weekly wage of 10s. for a single small unpunctuality. Arriving thus at
the mill a few minutes late, she was locked out for a quarter of the day
and forfeited her “bonus” of 2s. in addition to the quarter time lost,
reckoned as 4d. The High Court confirmed the decision of the magistrates
to dismiss the summons, on the ground that the 2s. bonus could not be
computed as wages, and that therefore no fine was inflicted.
The Committee on Truck, 1908, decided that the bonus system was open to
grave abuse, and on the evidence placed before them believed that it was
abused. They made certain recommendations for its control through
empowering a court “after considering all the circumstances of the case
to decide whether the bonus is used by the employer as a means of
evading the requirements of the statute, and, in the event of deciding
that it is so used, to convict the employer.”[69] I confess that it
appears to me that if such a clause had stood in the Act it would not
have altered the decision in _Deane_ v. _Wilson_. Magistrates and Judges
alike arrived at the conclusion that the Truck Act did not provide a
remedy for a reduction by 2s. 4d. of a gross payment of 10s. for a
week’s skilled work (which 10s. was regularly given to the wage earner
if no unpunctuality occurred). The reduction left the wage earner with
7s. 8d. net for a week in which she only lost a few minutes by her own
lateness. The recommendation of the Minority Report of the Truck
Committee “that the bonus system should be prohibited by law” would
hardly solve the difficulty. Extra rewards to workers for good work
could never be effectually prohibited by law. The real problem is to
assure to the worker a secure, net minimum wage, and to defeat evasion
by unreasonable or unjust employers.[70]
The charges upon wages above considered have been taken first—although
not the earliest form of Truck—because they were characteristic of the
factory system and specially harassing to large numbers of women in the
period from 1893 to 1914, before great changes were brought by the War.
Payment in “unprofitable wares” instead of in “lawful money” mainly
troubled unorganised factory operatives during the transition from
handicraft industry to mass production. Truck—that is, in its original
sense—survived in our official experience, and called for our
intensified enquiry and action among outworkers in rural districts: in
Cornwall and Somerset, over wide areas in Ireland, and among knitters in
Shetland. From these directions complaints flowed in upon the Women
Inspectors, keeping them absorbed for many months in activities that
made them, for the time, almost anything but Factory Inspectors. They
led us into almost incredible experiences[71] until eventually various
legal decisions made it plain that any outworker who was not under an
express contract personally to execute the manual work, however poor or
however clearly in need of protection, was outside the Truck Acts.
Two ancient forms of oppressive “agreement ... understanding ... or
arrangement ... direct or indirect” prohibited by law,[72] continued,
however, in our time to trouble ill-organised factory workers, irregular
charges for rent, and compulsory expenditure of wages at an employer’s
shop.
“The people say it was a charity for you to stop the checks, but it
would be a greater charity if you would stop the rents being kept off
the workers.” “If the Inspector would look after shopkeepers giving out
work and making the workers take goods instead of money, I think she
would be doing a service to the poor.” Both these complaints have the
vivid, Irish ring, but they expressed the sore needs of many a worker,
and not only in Great Britain and Ireland. As regards deductions for
rent, without a shadow of a legal right, no reported instance is worse
than that in a lucifer match factory in England in 1898, followed by
prosecution and fine, where, in absence of any contract, the employer
was taking nearly the whole earnings of a half-starved young girl worker
for accumulated and unrecorded rent, unpaid by her father during a long
epidemic of smallpox.[73] Another instance nearly as bad was found in a
factory in a great textile district where, without rent-book or any form
of contract (which in any case could not have been legalised), any wife
or daughter engaged on piecework was liable to receive her earnings
reduced by quite undefined amounts, said to be rent due from husband or
father. The mere fact that the mill was sometimes “standing” added to
the uncertainty of the position; in one case successfully taken into
court, the employer’s ledger showed 17s. 1½d. deducted for rent in six
weeks for a cottage rented at 2s. a week.[74] The Irish complainant
(living in a house owned by his employer) was, however, concerned far
more with insecurity of tenure and with the feature that “if you get
dismissed out of your employment they won’t give you any money (wages)
till the house is empty.” Uncertainty about the poorest roof over his
head, being his home, was to the Irish peasant yet worse than insecurity
of employment.
Miss Martindale sometimes found dressmakers employed in Irish country
towns who “lived-in,” receiving their wages only once a year, who were
obliged to obtain articles on credit from their employers, getting
seriously in debt to them. She also found hand-spinners and weavers in
the tweed industry paid in exorbitantly priced draperies and groceries;
a complainant, telling how a girl’s wages were pledged by her father to
a rich shopkeeper for five years for the paying off of his debts,
described the girl as “sold” to her employer. The remark made to Miss
Martindale by a man who had very special opportunities of knowing the
poorer country districts of Ireland, that “the people are born in debt,
die in debt, and live in bondage,” struck her in the year 1907 as
“undoubtedly only too true.”[75]
In few places could the framework of bondage be more complete than in a
certain “townland,” where the owner of the principal shop and public-
house was also the owner of the flax fields and flax scutch mill, and
employer of many of the inhabitants. The women working for wages in the
mill seldom received coin; one girl, whose father and sister were
dependent on the same employer, received none during a whole winter.
Dealing at the shop was practically a condition of employment.[76] A
successful prosecution in 1907, upheld on appeal against conviction to
Quarter Sessions, brought in many communications of similar cases to
Miss Martindale, as did the well-known earlier prosecution by Miss Deane
at Ardara in 1898, and several more by Miss Squire in Dungloe and
neighbouring districts, which led in 1900 to her hard-fought appeals to
the High Court, touched on in Chapter VI. These ladies were indeed all
the “petticoated Inspectors” of whom a well-known Irish Q.C. declared at
the hearing of an appeal in June, 1900, that there was “an army squatted
around Dungloe, watching every little industry and striving to throttle
them.”[77]
Many of the difficulties that the Inspectors had to encounter in remote
country districts, in their endeavour to scotch or root out the habit of
paying in kind or in tickets usable instead of coin at a particular
shop, were not of legal interpretation. They were largely of local
circumstances. A fortnight’s residence in 1899 in a lovely district of
county Donegal enabled me, beyond my expectations, to gauge the
character of these practices. The open friendliness shown by the peasant
woman and car-drivers to an English visitor showed me some of the
essential factors of the situation. There was a manifest sense of
security among the law-breakers, on the alert to conceal all traces of
their methods of payment since the £44 penalty secured against a
shopkeeping middlewoman by Miss Deane in 1898. In their shops, their
inns, their ownership of cars, they represented the wealth and carrying
power of the local community; in their connections through marriage with
the priests’ and magistrates’ families, and sometimes even their
position as magistrates, they represented the order of the community. It
was possible for me to ascertain, beyond doubt, that not only
outworkers, but also masons and roadworkers, were being paid for their
work mainly (and sometimes wholly) in goods estimated above their real
value; it was a long work of patient skill to establish particular cases
in court, and to Miss Squire I left this part of our task. I could see
carts laden with yarn and groceries that drove out for miles round the
country and that brought back knitted hose; the difficulty was to be on
a spot out in the country, or in a shop, at the exact moment to see the
transactions. “To be an eye-witness,” said Miss Squire, “of such payment
is almost impossible, for that it is illegal is well known; and
immediately a stranger enters a shop all transactions cease. Baffled
frequently, I succeeded on one occasion, by a carefully planned
stratagem ... and saw the socks handed over the counter, yarn for fresh
socks given out, and packets of tea and sugar given in payment. Except
in this one case I had, in undertaking prosecutions, to rely entirely
upon the workers, and even those who beforehand appeared most staunch
managed to evade service of summons, disappeared from their homes in a
wonderful manner, and were with difficulty brought to the court. Once
there and put on oath, the truth is told and conviction of the employers
followed in each case, the maximum penalty being obtained in one case
and £5 in each of the others.... The immediate effect of the proceedings
is that money is handed now to workers by the agents, but a close watch
will have to be kept lest ... the practice is continued in another and
more hidden form.”[78] This was a prophetic utterance, as instances of
struggles in later legal proceedings showed, especially in two distinct
appeals, _Squire_ v. _Sweeney_ in 1900.[79] In many ways, by letter and
by word and gesture, the grateful women showed the gallant Inspectors,
Miss Squire and her successor, Miss Martindale, how highly their
adventurous efforts were valued. At this time it came out clearly that
some local country agents of manufacturers of the big centres suffered
from miserably low commissions. One told Miss Squire that he had no
commission at all, that he had ceased to pay in goods since her
prosecution showed him it was illegal, and he asked her if she could
help him to find a commission-paying employer. Special care was taken to
bring home to the head firms in the North and West of Ireland the grave
responsibility they bore in this matter.
In the following year, not only in Ireland but also in Cornwall, amongst
guernsey knitters, and in Somerset amongst kid-glove makers, Miss Squire
carried forward this endeavour to secure respect for the right of the
worker to “free control of her own earnings unhampered by any condition
as to where and how they should be spent.”
“Only by a daily intercourse with cottagers in remote villages and the
fishing folk of little seaside towns ... can the real nature of their
business transactions be fathomed. The information so obtained and
pieced together disclosed a state of such widespread defiance of the law
and contempt of the rights of the wage earner as it seems incredible
could exist in England at the present time.” In the same year the
Superintending Inspector for the Northern Division noted that there
existed “a considerable amount of the old system of Truck,” in the
Shetland shawl, the Harris tweeds, and the fishing industries of
Scotland. He thought it hardly “remediable under the Acts by the
Inspectorate.” The features he indicated were just those against which
Miss Squire’s carefully devised campaign was directed in Ireland and
South-West England. Unquestionably, new and unconventional methods of
exploration of the trouble had to be tried. The Cornish women excelled
in their knitting of yachtsmen’s guernseys for which the nominal payment
was 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. each, but the payment was in drapery goods from
the employer’s shop “at whatever price and of whatever quality the
employer chooses to supply”; a poor cripple woman was found in great
distress with a man’s coat on her hands, when she sorely needed money
for her rent. In Somersetshire villages the kid-glove makers were being
paid in goods from the grocery shop of an agent who fetched the work
from factories, distributed it to the cottages, collected it again, and
returned it to the factories. The ten cases successfully prosecuted
against five drapers and grocers, who were contractors in these
counties, had an immediate good effect that lasted for some time, and
some manufacturers were moved to open a depôt in Yeovil where they gave
out the work and paid the outworkers in coin through their own
clerk.[80] A recrudescence of the system was found by Miss Slocock in
1907 in Somersetshire after the English High Court decision in _Squire_
v. _Midland Lace Company_. This, like the Irish decision in _Squire_ v.
_Sweeney_, practically withdrew the protection of the Truck Acts, 1831
to 1887, from the English outworker.[81]
These Acts have awaited amendment all these years from 1908 to 1921, and
meantime the scope of wages problems for women has widened and changed,
in Great Britain at least. The War went far towards establishing for
women a legal claim to a reasonable minimum wage; first, temporarily,
when they were employed as substitutes in great organised men’s
engineering industries, and then through Trade Boards gradually set up
in trades where no adequate machinery of organisation existed for the
effective regulation of wages. Women’s own great industrial services to
the nation during the War, fostered and encouraged by specialised
training, of course altered the outlook fundamentally. It was no longer
a favour conferred on them merely to employ them; their work and their
special aptitudes and skill were seen in a new light as a service to the
community.
Yet even before these new motives came in sight, things had not stood
still, for the Factory Act of 1895 had made secure the claim of the
pieceworker to a definite contract as to her prospective earnings on any
given piece of work. That Act directly extended to all pieceworkers in
textile trades the right to _written_ particulars of work and wages, in
a section[82] which was declared by Mr. Birtwistle—first Inspector of
Textile Particulars—to be “without doubt the most popular section of any
Act of Parliament ever passed in the interest of labour.”[83] The strong
organisation of the textile trades, especially the Lancashire cotton
trade, had secured the beginnings of this protection to some textile
pieceworkers in the Act of 1891.[84] It was suggested possibly by a
similar provision for handicraft silk weavers in an Act of 1845.
It was so immediately successful in setting these workers free from the
torment of insecurity in calculating prospective earnings on intricate
piece rates, liable to frequent alterations, that other pieceworkers
soon called for its aid. This was provided for by the power taken in
1895 to apply the benefit of the provision by Order of the Secretary of
State “to any class of non-textile factories or to any class of
workshops ... subject to such modifications as may in his opinion be
necessary for adapting those provisions to the circumstances of the
case.”[85]
This just and simple measure, really indispensable for intricate
piecework in mass production, was valuable, not only for collective
bargaining between employers and employed, but also for enabling
individual workers to understand and discuss the basis of piecework
earnings. It was happily applied further, by the Act of 1901, to
outworkers on prescribed lists kept by the occupier of a factory or
workshop and by contractors.[86]
With the aid of many confidential complaints from women workers, the
Women Inspectors were enabled to make a long series of effective
investigations in many non-textile industries as to the inability of
pieceworkers to calculate what their earnings would be at any given
piece of work, and as to their consequent bitter feeling of grievance in
the matter. In 1896 Miss Deane reported to the Home Office on the need
for application of the clause to workers in blouse, apron, and
handkerchief trades. I reported similarly in that year on the workers’
desire for, and great need of, this provision in the wholesale clothing
trade in the North of England, and I completed this enquiry for the
remainder of the great centres of the industry in England and Scotland
in 1897–98. It was at once found that the practice of giving particulars
to pieceworkers was already in existence in fair-dealing factories, and
that the best manufacturers held that “the only business-like system is
to have a clear contract with the workers, such contract to hold good
until the question of a new one has been fully considered and threshed
out.” In 1898 I reported that the general need of outworkers who then
stood outside the section for the protection afforded by the section was
even greater than the need of the factory worker.[87] The needs of
pieceworkers in pen-making, hand fustian cutting, underclothing, shirt
and collar industries were investigated and reported on in quick
succession chiefly by Miss Squire, and in 1899 our first cases under an
Order for written particulars were successfully taken into court by her.
This advertisement of the possibility of applying a remedy to one of
their greatest handicaps and grievances—lack of power to calculate
earnings—brought a decided increase in complaints about wages from women
and girls.
The 1900 Order for particulars to pieceworkers in the pen-making trade—
where long and intricate investigation into the conditions of
calculating and paying wages had been necessary in this industry of many
minute, successive hand-tool operations[88]—brought strikingly good
results in a remarkably short time. The results were not only material
in wages to the worker, but, still more, moral in engendering confidence
between workers and employers. In 1898 there was much lack of
confidence, workers asserting that their “lots” of pens were frequently
larger than the nominal amount, and employers were more or less
resentful of investigation. In March, 1901, Miss Squire reported that
the occupiers of the twelve pen factories—all situated in Birmingham—had
set to work in a “highly commendable way” to supply the prescribed
particulars. I doubt if any change in methods of stating and fulfilling
wage contracts was ever more quietly and rapidly effected. The employers
seemed to understand thoroughly the spirit of the Order, and they
expressly recognised that Inspectors, manufacturers, and workers had to
work out the details of the new requirement together in a harmonious
way. Here, and in various other trades, the complexity and mass of
detail that had to be mastered in developing the various Orders for
piecework particulars led to continual interchange of information and
help between the District Inspectors and the floating staff of Women
Inspectors. The work done then and later by the whole Factory Department
must certainly have smoothed the way for introduction of Trade Board
minimum wage scales. The Orders for locks, latches, and keys, cables,
chains, and cart gear, of 1902, specially operated in this direction.
In some industries, and strangely in wholesale fustian clothing
factories situated in textile districts where the idea of written
particulars had first prevailed, there was much patient work to be done
by the Inspectorate in overcoming a stubborn adherence to defective
methods of giving particulars, such as chalk marks on garments, use of
symbols, and their refusal even to give particulars at all.
Early in 1903 came the first and very important extension of this
protection to outworkers in the wholesale tailoring trade. Their need
could not be expressed in the same clear, organised way as by the
factory workers. It was none the less surely to be discovered by
research among them, as Miss Squire found when she investigated,
directly or through visits to firms, the needs of over 6,000 outworkers.
Her account of the variety in systems of giving out work in the four
great centres—Leeds, London, Colchester, Bristol—and the risks of the
bag-woman or carrier system in the last two districts, must be read to
acquire an adequate idea of the needs of the women:
“The bag-woman or carrier system is open to much abuse, especially
where these are really contractors receiving the outwork price
themselves and giving what proportion they think fit to those to whom
they pass on the work. Sometimes they keep the grocery shop of the
village, and if they are sharp enough not actually to infringe the
letter of the Truck Act, sail very near the wind and obtain an
injurious control over their customers, dependent as these are upon
them for both work and grocery. The prices paid to outworkers for
either making or finishing are incredibly low at the best; at the
worst, the ‘slop clothing’ rate, they are cruel. With all the sad
experience one has gained in many trades of the amount of work a woman
will do for a penny, one still marvels how anyone, however poor, can
be found to accept the rate given for some classes of work, as, for
example, elevenpence a dozen for finishing (that is, all but the
stitching of the seams) men’s trousers. When the rate of wages is so
low, it is of great moment to the worker to know exactly what the
price is; she wants to be absolutely sure that she has not been misled
by some symbol into putting ‘A’ quality work, which takes more time,
into a ‘B’ quality garment, for which she will receive a halfpenny
less, or to run the risk of being told when she takes the work back to
the factory that she was mistaken if she thought the price would be
eightpence, as it had been lowered to sixpence.
“That there is a real need for the outworker to have ... the written
statement of the price the employer contracts to pay was abundantly
proved. In the absence of such written particulars the homeworker is,
at best, uncertain as to the price she will receive, and is at times
in complete ignorance, so that the door is open for fraud on the part
of ‘passer,’ or carrier, or messenger.”[89]
The need of written particulars for outworkers was voluntarily
recognised by some employers, but not being enforceable had been often
fitfully and carelessly carried out by their agents. It was pre-
eminently a case where law should step in to bring up general practice
to the level admitted by public opinion to be the least that was due
from employer to employed.
At the end of 1903 the Order for particulars to pieceworkers in the
shirt, collar, linen underwear, corset, and other wearing apparel trades
widely extended this safeguard to cover unorganised women—to their
immense satisfaction. “Mrs. A., employed in a chiffon and straw hat
workshop, informed the Inspector how pleased she had been to read in the
political news of _Lloyd’s_ about the new Order. Formerly she never knew
until Saturday night when her job was done, what she would receive for
it.... Miss D., belt and tie maker, ... recently did fifty dozen,
expecting 2d. more a dozen than she received.”[90]
The work of enquiry, followed by extension of the principle of supplying
written particulars to pieceworkers, went on apace. Seventeen or more
trades were added in 1907 by composite Orders, and more in later years.
Every effort was made to give administrative effect to all these Orders
as fast as possible. The Inspectors acquired, as it were automatically,
a wide and detailed acquaintance with prevalent wage rates, and were
again and again struck by the tendency of employers to lower rates
“directly girls get quick and earn too much.” “It appears to be useless
to point out that this is a very short-sighted policy, and that all
incentive to quick, good work is crushed out.”[91]
The time was evidently getting ripe for application of the principle of
minimum wage regulation.
And yet a word may here be added on the valuable help, in ratio of work
to wages, that sometimes could be brought, through the Factory Act and
the Factory Inspector, to a most helpless class of workers, those in
low-paid industries who were practically compelled to take work home at
the close of the legal day in the factory in order to keep body and soul
together. A striking example of an old-standing breach of Section 31 of
the Factory Act of 1901 (restricting employment inside and outside the
factory or workshop on the same day), with a sinister effect on the
wages of the girls, was brought to light by Miss Escreet in Birmingham
in 1913:
“Workers in the warehouses of a pen factory had been regularly taking
home cards to thread with elastic for the reception of pens,
compasses, india-rubber, etc. The workers, who mostly lived some way
from the factory, arrived at their homes about 7.15 p.m., and in
nearly every case worked steadily for three nights in the week for
three hours or more. Many of the girls with large quantities of cards
to do received help from their relations; even where this was given,
their leisure was encroached on to the extent of one and a half to two
hours, and where it was lacking entirely, work sometimes went on till
midnight, or spread to four or five evenings in the week. Ample
evidence was at hand to explain the continuance of this ‘voluntary
work’: the system had been long virtually used to economise on the
wages bill, for ‘cards’ were given out and their quantity increased at
regular intervals, when girls would normally be receiving a rise. That
the economy was a successful one may be seen from the fact that the
average weekly warehouse wage of six adult workers, taken at random,
was 10s. 1d., which they increased to an average of 13s. 5½d. by doing
‘cards.’ This system enabled the employer to economise in his
insurance contributions as well as in wages, for, without the card-
money, he would have been liable for an increased contribution. The
girls were shrewd enough to appreciate the unfairness of the system,
and welcomed its abolition, in spite of the fact that their net wages
have dropped. An increase has been given at the factory, but not to
the extent of the weekly cards. Nevertheless, I was told in one case
by the sister of a worker that they had had ‘the happiest week for
twelve years.’ And a grateful Jewish mother wished me ‘a long life,
and God bless you’ over and over again.”
CHAPTER IV
DANGEROUS AND INJURIOUS PROCESSES; ACCIDENTS AND SAFETY
“’Tis a sordid profit that’s accompanied with the destruction of
health.”—B. RAMAZZINI, 1678.
Let us turn now from general conditions affecting women and girls in
factory life to special dangers due to “any manufacture, machinery,
plant, process, or description of manual labour.”[92] Here the aid given
by Women Inspectors, though extensive and indispensable, has hitherto
been ancillary rather than primary in character. They have not before
1921 been brought into the Factory Department expressly in the capacity
of medical, engineering, or chemical experts. And yet their early
research into many imperfectly explored causes of injury to health and
safety of women and young workers was so steadfast, and their evidence
in Annual Reports so freely read and quoted in Parliament and the Press,
that they stirred public opinion to a new outlook on women’s needs in
these matters. As time went on the Department was able to draw in an
increasing number of women candidates with good degrees in science, and
with considerable experience in research or in work of an administrative
character. The steady pooling of knowledge and experience that went on
in the Women’s Branch yielded good fruit.
The Women Inspectors were immediately called on by the Chief Inspector
of 1893 to 1895 to share both in enforcing new “special rules” for
dangerous and injurious processes,[93] and in conducting enquiries with
a view to strengthening these rules. They came into the service
practically at the beginning of the new movement for _applying_
scientific knowledge in these matters; knowledge of some of the ills had
existed before, but it had not been applied and was therefore
incomplete. They entered the Department five years before a Medical
Inspectors’ Branch was set up, and three years before the momentous
requirement was made that medical practitioners should notify certain
diseases (lead, phosphorus, etc., arsenical poisoning or anthrax),
contracted in a factory or workshop, to the Chief Inspector.
Before the entry of the Medical Inspectorate, the long-established
institution of part-time certifying surgeons[94] had brought some
medical observation, largely unco-ordinated, to bear on industrial
conditions. From their private practice among industrial workers the
certifying surgeons often gathered important records of individual cases
of industrial poisoning, respiratory and other diseases, arising from
injurious conditions of manufacture. These records could be and were
fully utilised by the Medical Inspectors in due course—as may be well
seen in the reports and other writings by Dr. T. M. Legge and Dr. E. L.
Collis.
Not until after the War (in 1921) was a medical Woman Inspector
appointed to the Medical Branch—Dr. E. M. Hewitt. During all the earlier
years from 1893 reliance was placed on the initiative of the Women’s
Branch of the Department for the highly necessary observation by women
of conditions and habits of women and girl workers. An outstanding
obstacle to obtaining exact knowledge of industrial mortality and
disease amongst women arose from the omission to enter in mortality and
hospital records the occupation of married women, whether occupied prior
to or during married life. This entailed a closer individual
investigation among women than among men for clues to industrial disease
and careful following up of their cases outside the factory as well as
inside. When information was needed on grave injury and early deaths
among, for example, asbestos workers or china scourers, in cases of lead
poisoning or phosphorus necrosis, or mercurial poisoning in the days
before notification was compulsory, indispensable contributions were
made by the investigations of Women Inspectors in many directions, and
especially as to the effects of lead processes on maternal functions.
The earlier tentative “special rules” for safeguarding the workers
against “dangerous and unhealthy incidents of employment” had been made
in 1892 and 1893, under the new powers of the Factory Act of 1891
suggested by the special rules under the Mines Acts. The special rules
were made on the proposal of the Chief Inspector to the occupier of the
factory after the process, machinery, or manual labour in question had
been scheduled by the Secretary of State as being, in his opinion,
“dangerous or injurious to health, or dangerous to life or limb, either
generally or in the case of women, children, or any other class of
persons.” Each occupier had a right of objection to the rules proposed,
and provision was made for arbitration. In the absence before 1896 of
any medical experts on the staff or of any substantial statistical
evidence of cases of industrial poisoning and disease, the earliest
special rules could only be few, simple, and experimental in character.
Gradually, under the direction of the first Medical Chief Inspector, Sir
Arthur Whitelegge, and the very slowly added medical staff, beginning
with Dr. T. M. Legge in July, 1898, knowledge and vigour of regulation
grew. Administrative methods of establishing regulation were greatly
improved, and the uncertainties of arbitration in such highly expert
questions were removed by the Act of 1901. The early years of the
twentieth century saw what was unquestionably the most remarkable
development that had ever yet been attempted in any age or country in
applying scientific knowledge and care to the protection of workers from
industrial disease and injury. At last the reproach made by many medical
observers (and, particularly in our country, by Medical Officers to the
Privy Council in 1860) began to be lightened; the reproach that “the
canker of industrial diseases gnaws at the very root of our national
strength,” that “the sufferers are not few or insignificant, ...” that
“the magnitude of the evil is most imperfectly appreciated,” whether by
the authorities or by the “slowly suffering artisans themselves”—and
that all this was going on for lack of expert advice and the
administrative application of scientific methods to the problems
involved.[95] It was so long before the idea of industrial labour as a
social service began to gain ground that only a few enlightened
manufacturers, here and there, could attempt to try remedies.
It was not only medical knowledge that was needed to trace effects on
the human frame of poisons (such as lead, arsenic, white phosphorus,
mercury, etc.); of anthrax and tetanus germs; of gaseous and acid fumes;
of injurious and excessive dust; of excessive moisture or heat; of
muscular or nerve overstrain and impure air. The work of experts in
engineering, physics, chemistry, and, not least, in patient observation
of the habits, working conditions, ways and circumstances of the workers
affected, was equally indispensable. This had been to some extent
provided for in the reorganisation of the Inspectorate that followed the
Consolidating Act of 1878. The Acts of 1883 and 1889 to regulate white
lead and cotton cloth factories carried this matter further by
exploration of some of the most injurious conditions. Thus, in the ranks
of the general Inspectorate knowledge was available for technical work
in some of these directions.
It must be remembered that the principal Act had long provided for the
great safeguard of exhaust ventilation for removal of dangerous and
injurious dusts, fumes, or other impurities generated in the processes
or handicrafts carried on—though its full preventive scope was only
gradually realised. Its significance was explicitly and repeatedly
emphasised in later days by the Senior Medical Inspector, Dr. Legge,[96]
and the pioneer work of such leaders as the late Mr. E. H. Osborn, H.M.
Superintending Inspector of Factories, and the late Mr. C. R. Pendock,
H.M. Inspector, in the application of engineering knowledge to these
matters, should always be specially remembered. Their work was carried
forward in due succession by Mr. Sydney Smith and Mr. Stevenson Taylor.
Under the Cotton Cloth Factories Act of 1889,[97] administered by Mr. E.
H. Osborn and by Mr. Williams, now Superintending Inspector, exact
standards of ventilation and hygrometers were first introduced in
dealing with the dangers to health from excessive humidity of the
atmosphere and high temperature in the workshops. Out of these
experiences came recognition of methodical tests of chemical purity of
the air of workrooms. Later, scientific emphasis was laid—by Dr. Leonard
Hill, F.R.S.—on the truth that it is rather the physical than the
“chemical conditions of confined atmospheres which influence health and
happiness” of the worker. Before it was laid down as a truth that
“overheated and still air decrease the activity of the body furnace and
so lead to lessened resistance of disease,” Women Inspectors were
steadily bringing persuasive pressure to bear on occupiers for
introduction of mechanical ventilation to ease the visible strain they
saw in industrial work in the stagnant heat of many a factory or
workshed.
When Departmental Committees were set up, from 1892 onwards, for enquiry
into various dangerous trades, outside medical experts were appointed as
members before the advent of the Medical Inspectorate. In 1893 the
precedent was first set of appointing a Woman Inspector, Miss Abraham,
to such Committees where employment of women in the industries made this
specially desirable. Miss Abraham also served on the main Dangerous
Trades Committee, 1895 to 1899, on whose recommendations various codes
of special rules followed. With Dr. Legge I served in the enquiry into
Enamelling and Tinning of Metals, begun in 1901, and reported on for
each section separately in 1903 and 1907 respectively. Less than ten
years’ application of the first special rules of 1892 for these
processes had sufficed to show their inadequacy for controlling the
risks of lead poisoning. Separate regulations of the entirely distinct
sources of danger in vitreous enamelling and in tinning of metals was
not at first seen to be necessary; the obscurity of the sources in the
latter led us to a point where our need of chemical assistance was
evident, and this was provided when the services of Mr. G. Elmhirst
Duckering, H.M. Inspector of Factories and a skilled chemist, were lent
to us. A difference of method in the tinning of hollow ware and of the
tinning of terne plates had given us a clue. His long studies and exact
measurements of the degree of contamination of the air by fumes from the
tinning bath, and from the surface of the tinned hollow ware article as
it emerged from the tinning bath, led to definite conclusions as to the
presence of lead chloride in the fumes breathed by the worker. And so—at
last—we reached the possibility of obtaining effectual measures of
control.[98] The number of cases of poisoning began to fall in the
period 1909–11, and in 1920 only two were reported (both women), and
these from a factory where there had been a breakdown in exhaust
ventilation. Meanwhile, methods of manufacture had become less dangerous
as well as methods of exhaust generally more effectual.[99]
From this experience and from the parallel activities of Inspectors,
chemists, manufacturers in the far greater earthenware and china
industry, came new methods of determination of dust and poisons in the
air of workrooms. There came also re-enforced activity in anemometer
tests of mechanical exhaust for poisonous fumes and dusts; amendment of
construction of exhaust apparatus, and other detailed progress in what
Mr. Pendock well described as “means of cleaning the atmosphere: the
science of _air purification_, and a highly important science it
is.”[100]
The extent of the work that was waiting, almost untouched, in the last
decade of the nineteenth century, to be overtaken by persistent,
meticulous application of this science to protection of the health of
the industrial worker, may be partly realised by a backward glance at
some of the appalling records as to disease and premature death in
certain dusty processes. It must be remembered in considering the early
figures that they were gathered before the discovery and recognition of
the ubiquitous tubercle bacillus.
Let us take, first, flax preparation and carding, where women workers
were in the majority:
“Dr. Purdon, in 1872, states the mortality as 31 per 1,000, and Dr.
Whitaker in his report on the health of Belfast, 1892, says the
carder’s average length of life is only 16·8 years of work. If a girl
gets a card at eighteen her life is generally terminated at thirty.
The preparer’s average is 28·7 years of work. The ‘rougher’ and the
‘sorter,’ said Mr. Osborn, work in a continual cloud of dust composed
of particles of the fibre ‘which is inhaled, and irritates and dries
the throat and gradually finds its way into the lungs, producing
chronic inflammation of the lining membrane, which soon manifests its
presence by the worker being attacked each morning with a paroxysm of
dyspnœa and coughing. A worker suffering thus is said to be ‘poucey’
(pouce=dust=_poussière_) ... some roughing rooms have no ventilation
but windows opening at the upper part, and the workers face the wall,
which, of course, reverberates the dust upon them.”[101]
Far higher was the mortality per thousand among “china scourers”—a few
hundred women exposed to fine flint dust in the china industry. This
flint dust also severely affected men in china biscuit-placing shops, in
saggar emptying, and other operations.[102] China scouring is a dry
process, of which the word is descriptive, to which the ware is
subjected after it has been fired in the kiln. Before firing each piece
is buried in a bed of fine flint dust in a receptacle known as a saggar,
in which it is placed in the kiln, so that it may not adhere to the
saggar or other pieces of ware during firing. On coming out of the kiln
it is necessary to free each piece from adhering particles of the flint
dust by friction of three kinds: scrubbing with a stiff brush moved by
hand or by power, rubbing with stiff flannel, and with sand-paper. The
extent of the injury from the process was found after patient research
by Miss Deane and Miss Paterson in 1898. Rediscovered, one might more
precisely say, for the enquiries of the Royal Commission of 1841 on
Employment of Children and Young Persons had made it clear that the air
of the rooms in which china scouring was carried on was filled with
finely pulverised flint, the inhalation of which was “nearly as fatal as
that of the grinding stones of Sheffield.” In these 57 years nothing had
changed essentially. “Not many scourers live long; we all feel
overloaded upon the chest and cough very much; I cannot lie down all
night” (Commission of 1841). “Against the danger of this occupation
scarcely any provision has been made” (Sir John Simon to the Privy
Council in 1860). In their preparation of some evidence for an
arbitration in Stoke-on-Trent in 1898 on revised special rules chiefly
concerning lead in earthenware and china, the Women Inspectors
discovered a remarkable weakness in the rule controlling flint dust.
Whereas the stronger rule for elimination of dust by a positive
requirement of fans, applied to “towing” of earthenware (i.e., rubbing
soft clay dust off the pots with tow), the far more dangerous flint dust
of china scouring was controlled only by a rule requiring removal of
dust “_as far as practicable_,” by mechanical or other efficient means.
With energy they set to work to complete the evidence as to the
mortality of this occupation—by examination of all death certificates,
during two and a half years, of women between fifteen and seventy years
who had died in Longton, the chief china town, from respiratory diseases
and phthisis, and by visiting the homes of the persons. Comparing deaths
per thousand among all women in Longton attributed by the certificates
to these diseases with those, similarly, among women who had worked
regularly at china scouring, they found that these deaths per thousand
in the two years immediately preceding the enquiry had been nearly
fifteen times as great among china scourers as among other women in
Longton. The figures were given in detail in the Annual Report for 1898.
The Inspectors referred several cases of advanced fibroid phthisis that
came under their notice to the newly appointed Medical Inspector, who
attributed the physical signs in the lungs to inhalation of flint dust;
three of these died within the year.[103]
The Inspectors visited all the factories where china scouring was
carried on and found that, whereas efficient fan extraction had been
installed in a few, yet generally full advantage had been taken of the
permissive character of the rule regarding mechanical extraction of dust
by omitting it. Some of the smaller china factories were wholly or in
part unfitted for use as workplaces. The rule was amended as from
January 1, 1899, with marked results in improved mechanical methods and
in reduction of the disease by degrees. I found, by a comparative
enquiry, ten years later, that the high mortality from respiratory
disease and phthisis was reduced to less than half among china scourers,
but this was still far too high a rate, and many extremely sad cases
showed the need of strengthened provisions.[104] This information I gave
with much other evidence to the Departmental Committee appointed in 1908
by Mr. Herbert Gladstone, since Lord Gladstone, to enquire into dangers
from use of lead and injury to health from dust in china and earthenware
and incidental processes.[105] The chairman was Sir Ernest Hatch, Bart.,
and the able secretary, Mr. E. A. R. Werner, a skilled chemist.
To the work of this committee reference must presently be made in
dealing with lead poisoning in potteries; here we must recognise the
immense advance in control of the dust problem in these works that
followed on the adoption of the recommendations of the committee. The
age of inactivity on proven ills had passed. Undoubtedly the presence on
the committee of leading manufacturers and workers largely conduced to
the practical thoroughness with which the problems were handled.
Many other dusty processes affecting women that were not under special
rules also engaged the close attention of Women Inspectors, of which the
following examples may be given:
(_a_) Asbestos sifting, mixing, and carding; an industry singularly
little considered until complaints from the girls employed came in to us
year by year, from 1898 onwards. The sharp, jagged edge of the insoluble
mineral dust has undoubtedly occasioned much illness, and death, from
respiratory diseases. The first asbestos factory I entered was entirely
without applied exhaust, one of the dustiest processes being carried on
in a cellar. In another, revisited in 1906, on a complaint thoroughly
justified by the thick, fog-like atmosphere in the carding room,
ineffectual fan extraction had been introduced, but not applied to the
points of production of dust. By this date there were good examples of
well installed mechanical exhaust in large asbestos factories, and
progress could be secured in the smaller works. In 1911 Miss Whitlock,
M.B., an Inspector in the Women’s Branch, made careful study for us of
this industry, and found a considerable amount of phthisical, bronchial,
and gastric trouble still present. The least defect in the working of
the applied ventilation was dangerous.
(_b_) Silk waste carding and spinning gave rise to woeful complaints of
dust from women, from 1898 onwards. Increased injuriousness of the
excessive dust in preparatory processes coincided with the introduction
of an inferior quality of silk. Dr. Legge found, in samples referred to
him by Miss Squire, débris of silkworms containing “an enormous number
of hook-like structures, probably portions of the thoracic and abdominal
segments of the pupa case.” This gave support to the apparently strange
opinion of the workers expressed to Miss Squire that they were coughing
up not silk but silkworms; and it led us back to Ramazzini’s account, in
1678, of the effect on silk workers of the combing of “grosser
filaments, which have parts of the bodies of silkworms mixed with them,”
that they were troubled with “a vehement cough and great difficulty of
breathing ... and few of them live to an old age.”[106] Again and again
the need for scientifically applied exhaust had to be pressed for in
this side of the silk industry, something inadequate was repeatedly
tried, and choked-up ducts to fans even led to the beating back of dust
on the workers. Eventually the introduction of machinery for cleaning
the material before carding—steadily urged on the occupiers—helped to
solve the problem of efficient extraction of dust.[107]
(_c_) Teazle brushing in hosiery factories, a finishing process for
smaller articles in Leicester and Nottingham, produced excessive dust of
broken powdery wool and cotton fibre, causing great discomfort in eyes,
and choking sensations in throat and chest. The trouble was removed and
valuable surplus dust for reselling was saved by applying exhaust with
closely fitting cover to the machine and also a patent delivery roller
at the back. Excellent results were reported in the following year, to
the satisfaction not only of workers, but also manufacturers and
foremen.[108]
(_d_) Mercerised cotton yarn dust was first noticed in 1902 as giving
rise to what was known as “mercerised fever,” shivering and sickness
with cough and oppression in the chest. It was attributed to strong
caustic soda in the cotton fibre, which was irritating to the bronchial
and nasal passages. The trouble was removed by requiring exhaust
ventilation.[109]
(_e_) Miss Squire and her staff, when localised in Manchester from 1908,
had their attention drawn (by complaints) to excessive dust in the
making-up warehouses in which girls were employed in “hooking and
lapping” heavily “sized” grey shirting and stiffened muslin. “Stuffed-
up” chests and throat trouble and sickness were the results, and great
discomfort was felt even by the Inspectors on their visits. They
systematically served notice on the occupiers to provide localised
exhaust ventilation, which removed the trouble.[110]
(_f_) Buffing of plated articles—_i.e._, mechanical friction with Trent
sand sometimes mixed with lime—in Sheffield electro-plate works was the
subject of a careful study by Miss Whitlock, M.B., to whose interesting
report reference may be made by those desirous of following up the
subject.[111] In the majority of buffing shops the women stayed in for
their meals, and application of exhaust ventilation was only found in
one shop. She found that the cases of phthisis among them were more than
double the rate per thousand of those amongst women over fifteen years
in the town, and that anæmia was prevalent.
(_g_) Dust as well as other injurious features in little scattered
country flax scutch mills was specially followed up by Miss Martindale
from 1907 onwards in North Ireland. Ineffective fans were fixed in many
of these mills, and described by the workers as “a pest and a torment,”
through their alternative capacity for stirring up the injurious dust
and for getting choked up with fibre! In 1914 I took part in a
conference in Belfast between representatives of the Factory Department
and the Irish Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction with the
aim of concerted action as regards mechanical ventilation of the scutch
mills. These mills, being mostly situated near flax fields for the first
stages of preparation of the dried fibrous material for manufacture,
concerned both Departments. The War intervened, and these problems have
there fallen to the charge of a new administration. The question was
again raised for the Factory Department during the War, when flax
growing and scutching was initiated by Government action in various
parts of England.
Many other dusty processes and the health of women in them engaged our
attention; in rag and refuse sorting, fur-pulling, in hatters’ furriers’
factories and horsehair factories, in starch rooms of confectionery
works, hemp-rope works, sackmending, cotton waste works, india-rubber
works, eiderdown and kapok-filling factories, clay pipe scouring,
embossed paper lace-making, etc. In a lace-tinting business for
dressmakers we called in Dr. Collis’s aid for investigation of marked
injury to health of all the workers; he not only found the soreness of
nostrils and pharynx associated with inhalation of dust, but also
phthisical results from the finely divided dust shaken out by hand from
the lace. Here the occupier at great expense provided efficient exhaust,
drawing off dust from the lace without this shaking by hand. Improved
methods of working were in our experience a frequent consequence of our
demands for extraction of dust.
In connection with an enquiry in Sheffield into the association of
phthisis and dusty trades Miss Whitlock found that the system of
compulsory notification of consumption already in practice there in
1911, combined as it was with enquiry into occupation of the patient,
greatly facilitated her work.
Bronzing,[112] whether by hand or machine, of all kinds of paper
programmes, showcards, prospectuses, Christmas cards, etc., in
lithographic works or departments of works, affected workers in ways
that almost perennially commanded our attention. Dust from bronzing was
on the border line between those that are simply mechanical in action on
the respiratory passages and those that are either irritant or
poisonous. In the earlier years the work itself was generally
intermittent, not continuous. Although the Dangerous Trades Committee in
1896 made recommendations in their first interim report for control of
risks in this process by special rules, the apparent absence of
permanent injury to health among those engaged in it led in the first
place to the application by the Home Office of voluntary, not
compulsory, rules for protection of the workers. Our activities,
conjointly with District Inspectors, in pressing questions of dust
extraction, means of maintaining personal cleanliness, overalls, supply
of milk, examination of workers by the certifying surgeon, and so on,
fortunately led to improvement in bronzing machines with vacuum
arrangements for dust. Probably they led also in part to the
concentration of the work in the hands of a few occupiers that followed;
finally, special regulations were made compulsory in April, 1912.
In 1911 an important step was taken for more systematic work by Women
Inspectors in the field of dangerously dusty processes. In conference
with Mr. Pendock, as District Inspector and ventilating expert,
arrangements were made by Miss Lovibond (Mrs. Moorcroft) for the taking
of records, on tabular cards, of anemometer tests at hoods connected
with mechanical exhaust ventilation, so as to bring steady pressure to
bear on occupiers of factories for testing and maintaining efficiency in
their installations. As I said then: “There can be no question that
supervision of the provision of really efficient exhaust, and steady
maintenance of it, when provided, in thorough working order is the
supremely important task of the Inspectorate in all dusty trades where
dust is of a kind inhaled, whether the dust is simply mechanical or
irritant or poisonous in contact with the mucous membrane or respiratory
tracts.”[113] The taking of these records, of which copies were supplied
to occupiers, fortunately aroused much interest, and among workers as
well as employers. In the next year about 1,000 records were made in the
Potteries alone, including all places where workers, reported for lead
poisoning, were working at or near the exhaust ventilation. Miss
Whitlock took over this work at the close of that year and added an
invaluable enquiry into nearly all the reported lead cases among women
in potteries in 1913, giving us careful studies of the conditions and
ways of workers, with suggestions for future prevention. Early in 1914
we lost her increasingly valuable aid in medical questions concerning
women through her transference to the Industrial and Reformatory Schools
Department. Then the great upheaval of the War turned us away from
quiet, fruitful, concentrated activities of this nature to the many
problems arising from the intensified industrial production by women for
national needs.
I have been here led from point to point by following up one kind of
protection, which is a fundamental one, against risks in industry from
the various types of dust and from lead fumes. This will suggest,
perhaps, as well as any other method of approach, something of our share
as Women Inspectors on behalf of women workers in the immense work that
was carried on by the Factory Department during the years 1893 to 1914
in striving to lessen the special risks of injurious and dangerous
processes. It is impossible, except by devoting a whole book to it, to
do more than give samples of our service in this side of Factory Act
administration.
Some notion of the magnitude and complexity of dangers to be regulated
and injuries to be prevented, with the chief preventive measures
embodied in “special regulations,” can be gathered from Appendix I.—a
tabular summary that I made in 1913 (and which has been brought up to
the present date by Miss Squire, O.B.E.), giving these details in
alphabetical order for all the trades, processes, and descriptions of
manual labour, that are certified by the Secretary of State as
“dangerous or injurious to health or dangerous to life or limb.”
In addition to the research needed before regulations were made, to the
giving of evidence to Committees, Arbitrators, and Commissioners
appointed by the Secretary of State, when objections to draft
regulations had to be reviewed—besides instruction to occupiers and
workers, and prosecution when necessary—we gave a great deal of
attention to another side: the exclusion, or proposed exclusion, from
very dangerous processes of classes of persons whose age or sex made
them specially susceptible to poison or other risks. The special
interest of the whole community in protection of maternity and health of
young workers, for example, was the chief point on which we had
influence in developing regulations for the white lead industry, in
which the extraordinarily dangerous character of the main processes had
led to special control years before Women Inspectors entered the Factory
Department. Those who desire to follow out the history of regulation in
this industry, originally the foremost among “occupations injurious to
health,” might begin with the account in the Annual Report of the Chief
Inspector for 1879, when it was already illegal to employ in it any
person under eighteen years of age; and might further consult a complete
concise account of the various processes, their dangers and prevention,
in “Lead Poisoning and Lead Absorption,” by Dr. T. M. Legge and Dr. K.
W. Goadby, Chapter XVI.[114] On and after July 1, 1899, it became
illegal under special rules to employ a woman in the peculiarly
dangerous processes in white beds, stoves, etc. And, so far as _this_
industry is concerned,[115] most of the effect of the Women and Young
Persons (Employment in Lead Processes) Act, 1920, passed in pursuance of
the Washington Convention of 1919, had been long ago attained in our
country.
Other dangerous lead processes, originally highly serious for young
women workers, are found in the electric accumulator industry. Here
again our evidence supported the exclusion of these workers from such
risks, and since 1903 “no woman, young person, or child” may be employed
“in the manipulation of dry compounds of lead or in pasting.”[116]
Although it was not until 1908 that the primary investigation by an
Inspector of reported cases of industrial poisoning or anthrax cases
affecting women and girls was assigned by the Home Office to the Women
Inspectors, we had always used these reports for supplementary
enquiries. We had already, before 1900, a wide knowledge of the
conditions under which lead, phosphorus, and mercurial poisoning had
occurred, and had brought to light unreported cases, particularly of
lead and phosphorus necrosis, and some secondary effects of lead
poisoning in women.
The latter point was strongly exemplified in some information that I
presented in the Annual Report for 1897, gathered by Miss Paterson and
Miss Deane during that year. They enquired into seventy-seven reported
cases of plumbism amongst married women employed in lead processes in
the Potteries of Staffordshire, where the most injurious lead processes—
_e.g._, colour dusting, ware-cleaning—fell to women. They found among
these a high degree of childlessness, stillbirths, and miscarriages;
that thirty-six only had had living children averaging three each, and
of the total number of children two-fifths had died, the majority
succumbing to convulsions in infancy. Two sample cases gave a tragic
warning as to the social as well as individual physical effects of
employment in lead processes on maternity: “A.B., aged twenty-nine,
married seven years, had worked in lead ten years, had three
miscarriages, five stillborn children, and one child alive who died in
convulsions when a few weeks old. C.D., aged twenty-five, married seven
years, began to work in lead in her seventeenth year, had had four
miscarriages and three stillborn children; her one living child was born
after she was absent from her work.”[117]
Other cases as sad and sadder were found first by Miss Martindale, then
by Miss Vines, during their successive and systematic work in the
Potteries from 1903 to 1908. The latter visited practically all women
reported for lead poisoning, and a striking example was the case of Mrs.
B., colour duster and paintress, aged thirty-eight, married fifteen
years, who had nine miscarriages and one living child, ill all the three
years of its life; was herself disabled with wrist drop of both hands.
She had to take her case into court to obtain compensation due to
her.[118]
Although such enquiries dealt with a grave evil to some extent
understood before, the subject gives a good example of ways, arresting
to the general onlooker, in which women investigators seized on features
or consequences of industrial employment of women that concerned the
nation. Their consequent action and recommendations emphasised the need
of steady investigation by qualified women of absenteeism among women
workers in lead processes, and the extremely unsuitable conditions of
publicity under which medical examination in these early days sometimes
took place in the factory. “This led, not infrequently,” said Miss
Deane, “to failure in detecting the very evils which it is the object of
the examination to find out and eliminate.”[119] It appeared in 1900,
when I took some prosecutions against leading employers for neglect of
duties regarding medical examination, that there was a strong tendency
for girls who felt ill to leave a pottery without the suspension by the
certifying surgeon provided for in the special rules of 1899. Poverty,
dread of loss of employment without compensation—which was later made
available for them in such cases by the voluntary action of the
manufacturers themselves—seemed to me the strongest cause of that
tendency. Records of poignant individual cases accumulated by the
Inspectors made this factor very clear.
In the remarkable Pottery Code of Regulations, 1913, which followed on
the general lines of drastic recommendations made by the Departmental
Committee under Sir Ernest Hatch,[120] careful requirement was made that
a private room should be provided for the examination of workers by the
certifying surgeon, and other safeguards of privacy were laid down. Some
other provisions needed to secure effectual use by the workers of
safeguards provided for them followed the lines indicated by complaints
of women workers to the Women Inspectors. On these they had accumulated
evidence, sometimes with the aid of information given by officials of
the “Potteries Fund,” a voluntary fund for assistance of women and girls
suffering from lead poisoning in this industry. For example, separate
washing conveniences were now required for the sexes; women had
explained to me in detail how they could not use the same conveniences
as men coming from hot and dusty processes such as “glost placing,” in
which a large proportion of the men and boys were employed. New detailed
care was given in the regulations to provision and maintenance of
protective clothing and messroom arrangements; suppression of dust by
methods and means additional to those of exhaust ventilation; better
control of temperature; control of heavy weight carrying by young
workers, cleaning of floors, boards, and benches; new limitation of
hours for men as well as women in dangerous processes; exclusion of
women and young workers from certain processes. These and other matters,
particularly rules against heavy weight carrying, and for better methods
of cleaning floors, boards, etc., which were strongly supported by the
evidence arising out of our long researches, were remarkably thoroughly
dealt with in the code. An entirely fresh stimulus was applied to the
sense of responsibility in the occupiers of potteries by a requirement
that the occupier himself should appoint a competent person to carry out
systematic inspection of the working of all the regulations, and to keep
records of the inspection. This was truly a novel requirement in so
ancient an industry, relying as it too long had done on traditional
methods. How much it was needed may be seen in a sample prosecution by
Miss Martindale in 1913. She had found that, so far, the tendency had
been to note and record only breaches of the code by workers. She said:
“Undoubtedly this is salutary, but not, I take it, all that regulation
27 was intended to do. I revisited with Miss Whitlock a factory in which
in October she had noted not less than twenty-six breaches of the
regulations. The record of self-inspection showed no irregularities
since July.... The Works Inspector stated that he ‘had not observed
any,’ although the irregularities were such palpable ones as: not
providing milk, not affixing thermometers and placards, not painting
boards red.”[121] Conviction and heavy penalties followed the taking of
proceedings.
In addition to the industries above touched on, where women and girls
have run risk of lead poisoning, litho transfer making for decoration of
earthenware china gave us much thought in the past owing to the exposure
of young, anæmic girls to finely powdered dust containing lead.
Inclusion of the process under the stringent Pottery Regulations, and
improved methods of dust extraction, have greatly reduced the risks. The
glazing of bricks with lead in the glaze, later shown to be unnecessary,
was found by Miss Squire in 1898 to be causing fits among the girls who
were scraping the edges of the bricks. These attacks had been
thoughtlessly attributed to hysteria until brought under medical
observation. Heading of yarn dyed by lead chromate and painting of
perambulators still take prominent place amongst other industries from
which lead cases affecting female workers are notified. This may be seen
in the Table given below in Appendix II., which is included in order to
enable readers to appreciate the reductions in industrial poisoning that
have followed the changes indicated since 1900. The interesting
liability of lead to turn up in miscellaneous industries, in quite
unexpected ways and places, and especially in the great range of small
metal industries in the Midlands, is too wide a subject for further
consideration here. Sample cases and a long list of industries may be
seen in the Annual Report for 1913.[122]
The great general fall in number of reported lead cases, particularly in
potteries, that had come about by 1914 (see Appendix II.), and is still
more marked in later years, is no doubt due in the main to the
preventive measures I have so briefly indicated. Foremost of all came
improved methods of exhaust ventilation, but very important also were
cleanliness and reduction in hours of work. Until trade is quite normal,
however, the true effect of these measures and of the great aid given
first by legal compensation and then by National Health Insurance—which
enable workers to obtain treatment and rest from work at an early stage
of illness—cannot be fully known. The detailed, thorough investigation
done among the women exposed to lead by Women Inspectors (and
particularly in 1912 to 1914 by Miss Whitlock), which culminated in a
series of prosecutions for numerous contraventions of the new
regulations affecting them in potteries, no doubt led to a fresh start
for them. Of industrial poisoning Miss Whitlock wrote in 1913: “Poverty
with its attendant worry and lack of nourishment appears to be a
predisposing cause in many cases. The youth of many of the workers is
noticeable.... Apart from the painful character of the illness, the
length of time the cases last is a serious matter.... I often came
across cases which had been over a year on compensation.” “A woman in a
warehouse told me that she had been over three years at work after three
years on compensation and still suffered from pains in her limbs, and
was obliged sometimes to absent herself from work.” Of cases of serious
illness among women heading yarn dyed in lead chromate, Miss Tracey
observed: “Without home visits it would have been impossible to gauge
the extent and severity of the illness.”[123] Unquestionably specialist
work by Women Inspectors still remains to be done for women workers in
dangerous trades, even though the figures of poisoning seem to show them
to be now in a much safer position than men. The figures alone do not
disclose the whole matter. Much may yet be learned by following up
“absent” or “left” women workers, as well as by seeing reported cases in
their homes. A marked mobility of women’s labour in lead processes in
potteries was found in 1911 by Miss Sadler. In sixty-eight potteries at
the time of inspection (between January and September) no less than 258
were marked in the special register as “absent” or “left,” apart from
suspensions and reported cases. Out of forty cases diagnosed as lead,
she found twenty-four still suffering and in receipt of compensation;
and also that the majority were under thirty years and not suffering
from accumulated effect of bygone conditions.[124] When compulsory
compensation began to take effect it was gratifying to watch the growth
of realisation among manufacturers of the poverty caused by plumbism. In
the past much had been hidden in obscurity by the tendency of the poor
to suffer in silence. Manufacturers showed increasing recognition of the
importance of utilising compensation to the best advantage for the
individual cases.
From time to time, though rarely, mention was made in Annual Reports of
the appointment of a medical woman by employers to supervise the health
of women and girls in a large factory. This movement passed into a new
phase during the War, when national munition factories set the example
of appointing whole-time women medical officers. In 1920 we learned that
in “a growing number of factories medical women are appointed to
supervise health of women and girls.”[125] In the same year the first
appointment of a woman as certifying surgeon was made by the Chief
Inspector—in West London.
These developments in drawing medical women into official contact with
industry, and particularly the appointment of a woman as one of the
Medical Inspectors of Factories, have a greater significance for future
protection of the health of women workers since the absorption of the
Women Inspectorate, from August 1, 1921, onwards, into the general
district work of the whole country. Instead of concentrating enquiries
and action on behalf of working women, the Women Inspectors must
necessarily give their time largely to men and boy workers, male workers
being not less than 65 per cent. of all persons employed in factories
and workshops.
Meanwhile the whole pottery industry, the matchmaking industry, and
others with features that concerned the health and safety of women in a
special degree, have reorganised themselves on lines recommended by the
Whitley Report. Their Councils have happily immediately concerned
themselves with improving conditions of health and welfare. When one
sees, as I have, the admirable detailed work done for health and safety
in a factory with the aid of workers on a works’ committee in an
industry with a National Council—particularly in a factory with an
experienced welfare superintendent working harmoniously with the works’
committee—one realises what a long way has been travelled since 1893.
Each year, since 1919, has seen contact of the Factory Department with
new Councils, in questions relating to health, safety, and welfare—a
matter to which we may revert in Chapter VIII.
The pursuit of certain salient developments in control of foremost
industries responsible for lead poisoning where women are concerned has
led me so far to pass by absorbingly interesting work of Women
Inspectors on varied risks and injuries during the twenty-seven years
under review, thus only (as in the question of control of dust and fume
by mechanical means) could I, in so enormous a subject, sketch some kind
of picture, that might remain, of the women’s claim and our lines of
response.
It is necessary, however, in order to have any true picture of the work
of the Women Inspectors to sketch rapidly some other of its less closely
interwoven features. The effects of bisulphide of carbon as a solvent in
the making of rubber articles; of white phosphorus for the dipping paste
in matchmaking, producing phosphorus necrosis, called, with a sinister
familiarity, “phossy jaw”; of a solution of mercury to assist felting in
hatters’ and furriers, causing varying degrees of mercurial poisoning;
these took even more of our time and thought in early years than did
many of the injurious dusts already mentioned. As for white phosphorus,
considerable as was our share in tracking down hidden cases of necrosis
and other ill-health in lucifer match girls, and in helping to build up
special rules against the horrible risk of painful and disfiguring
disease, yet all that is now only of historical interest, for statutory
prohibition of the deadly ingredient in matches, whether manufactured in
our country or imported, came in 1908 by an Act which took effect from
January 1, 1910. And the active Joint Council of this reformed industry
and intelligent works’ committees in some factories, with their highly
developed mechanical methods, fittingly bear moral responsibility for
seeing that no such risks ever arise again. Our last reference to any
cases of necrosis was in the Report for 1909, when three young women
were (all from one factory) under treatment in a local hospital—one for
her first operation on the jaw, another for her fourth, while the third,
seen at home, had had two operations. All had suffered much. Some cases
arose during the War among men employed in manufacture of phosphorus. In
india-rubber works of recent years we have seen and dealt more with the
effects of naphtha fumes, dust, lead, great heat, and heavy weights,
than with bisulphide of carbon covered by special rules. The last bad
case we had was in 1911, from a factory where press of work led to
employment of girls for a longer consecutive spell than the two and a
half hours permissible under special rules. Hysteria, bordering on
insanity, followed, and the poor girl was summarily dismissed for
“insobriety and rowdyism.” She recovered quickly on separation from the
work, and was restored to her usual quiet self-control.[126] In the
following year we had some cases of mercurial poisoning in a hatters’
furriers’ workshop due to particles of dust from rabbit fur previously
brushed with a solution of mercury, the process being known as
“carotting.” These were attributed to a failure to maintain, in good
repair and efficiency, the otherwise excellent system of exhaust
ventilation, and to the use of an extra strong solution of mercury to
assist the felting property of inferior fur.[127]
As for anthrax, owing to the supreme importance of bacteriological
research and technical remedies requiring specialists in this industrial
disease, such services as we were able to render, in investigation of
the circumstances in reported cases affecting women, although far from
negligible as regards conditions in factories, were entirely subsidiary
to the work of the medical branch. Sometimes, too, we disclosed hidden
risks to women, engaged at home in cleaning and mending of a husband’s
clothing when he was employed in handling hides or other infective
material. Two out of six cases affecting women in 1914 occurred amongst
women not working in industry, one the wife of a tanner. The prosecution
of a brush manufacturer for breach of regulations in his factory brought
out the fact that one of his outworkers, who had suffered from an attack
of anthrax, was not covered by protective regulations. The obscure
origin of some cases, even among factory workers, appeared in a case
affecting a cotton spinner engaged in cotton that had been shipped from
Alexandria, and in various cases among women sorting or mending sacks
that had conveyed bone dust.[128]
Carbonic oxide poisoning, particularly in laundries, traceable to escape
of gas through defective fittings of ironing machinery, was a subject
that repeatedly engaged the attention of Women Inspectors receiving
complaints of illness among the girls employed on this work. In one
laundry, which had escaped inspection through failure of the occupier to
notify its existence, girls were found to have been gravely ill with
severe symptoms of this form of poisoning. Proceedings instituted
against the occupier for the failure to notify occupation and for using
a gas iron emitting noxious fumes led not only to conviction, but to a
special penalty (on account of the injury to health due to his neglect
of provisions of the Act), which was applied to the benefit of the
injured worker.[129]
The use of bichromate of potassium, causing “chrome holes” in the hands
of workers taking a very long time to heal, in dye works and in
wholesale photography works, was also brought under our observation.
In these kinds of risks, in cases of illness in tobacco works attributed
to nicotine poisoning, and in numerous cases and varieties of trade
eczema (inflammation of the skin or dermatitis), we brought much
information to the Senior Medical Inspector, and received his help in
taking action to secure remedies. Among the trades and processes in
which we gathered or discovered instances of dermatitis—some severe and
obstinate, others quickly yielding to treatment—were lime-juice
manufacture, fancy biscuit finishing in confectionery works, electro-
plating with use of potash, mercurial processes in electric meter
fitting, enamel dipping in metal hollow ware works, use of oil in
tobacco twist rolling, spinning and “batching” with use of shale oil for
softening the fibre in jute works, use of naphtha as a solvent for paint
on the hands, lacquering in brass foundries, claret bottling, gut
preparing at salt machines. In fish curing, where salt sores from the
brine have been an affliction for centuries for the workers engaged in
pickling herring, we did but turn fresh powers of observation on to a
well-known industrial ill; and in this seasonal calling the making of a
Home Office Welfare Order providing for first-aid as well as rest rooms
and other amenities, has brought remedies that should be thoroughly
effective in Yarmouth and Lowestoft.
At the outbreak of the War the whole position as regards the control of
dangerous and injurious trades and processes stood in complete contrast
to the almost stagnant conditions of legislation for hours of labour.
Just when a new stage was set for new risks as well as new experiments,
the Factory Department held the great advantage-point secured by the
long scientific work, described above, in many different kinds of
dangerous and injurious occupations. A markedly successful reduction in
industrial poisoning had been achieved. Having this body of knowledge
and experience it was a comparatively simple matter to supply the same
methods of control, when serious new kinds of industrial poisoning
appeared during the War, in connection with the rapid development of
aircraft and explosives manufacture. Cases of “toxic jaundice,”
popularly known as “dope poisoning,” which occurred in the varnishing of
the wings of aeroplanes by means of a solution containing
tetrachlorethane and, later, in the manufacture and use of
trinitrotoluene for high explosive known as T.N.T., could be quickly
studied and the causes regulated. In the varnishing of wings of
aeroplanes the ingredients of the solution were ultimately changed.[130]
In the case of T.N.T. poisoning, resulting also in toxic jaundice, the
Factory Department were able to supply to the Ministry of Munitions and
Explosives Supply Department a sufficient body of evidence and the
example of special regulations, for them to develop their own necessary
safeguards in the national and the controlled factories. In the national
and some of the controlled factories medical officers were specially
appointed at the works,[131] and the whole of the evidence was reviewed
both by Dr. Legge, Senior Medical Inspector at the Home Office, and the
Medical Officers at the Ministry of Munitions. The remarkable reduction
in cases of toxic jaundice may be seen in Appendix II.
Let us turn from disease or injury, the causes of which—such as dust,
poison, germs, irritants, or a combination of any of these—could be
definitely ascertained and controlled, and let us glance at more general
features and conditions of work that tend to impair the strength or
diminish the resisting capacity of the worker. Under this category the
items on which the Women Inspectors concentrated energy and action, with
marked results, were many. Some I have already dealt with, such as
excessive hours, bad general sanitation, extremes of temperature,
uncertain and low wages (leading to grave insufficiency of food and
other necessaries). Foremost among those with which I have not yet dealt
were heavy weight lifting, carrying or moving, beyond the physical
strength or growth of the worker; long hours of unnecessary standing;
heavy treadling or other undesirable use or strain of parts of the body
in processes where adapted appliances should be substituted; excessive
vibration from heavy machinery; excessively monotonous specialised parts
of processes that could not be carried on for long without nervous
strain; excessively wet or humid conditions of work; lack of means of
preparing or taking food at the works, or of maintaining personal
cleanliness in dirty or offensive processes (by suitable washing
appliances and protective clothing).
It is impossible to enlarge on the study and action of the Inspectors in
all these directions. The questions of messrooms and food, washing
conveniences, cloakrooms, protective clothing, and seats are touched on
in the last two chapters of this book. A few words may be said here on
heavy weights which—in their great strain on children and adolescent
girls and on mothers—made a special appeal to the Women Inspectors, and
on undesirable use of parts of the body for certain processes.
In 1897 I first reported on investigation of complaints of an injurious
pressure upon girls and women in factories to lift or carry heavy
weights. I had to point to the fact that such complaints must be
classified as “outside the scope of the Factory Acts,” and that our
“action has been confined to noting the conditions, and, where it
appeared possible or likely to lead to good results, we have drawn the
attention of the employer to them.” I suggested that the system of
preliminary examination as to physical fitness for the work to be done
should be a possible way of partly meeting the difficulty in the care of
young workers.[132] In the Factory Act of 1901 a provision was included
empowering the certifying surgeon to qualify his certificate of fitness
of young workers entering a factory by conditions as to the work on
which a child or young person under sixteen is fit to be employed. At
the suggestion of the Factory Inspectors this power was frequently used
by certifying surgeons in many different industries to limit the weight
that might be lifted, moved, or carried by these young workers—and with
great effect in the Staffordshire Potteries.[133]
It was in 1900 that I quoted a view, expressed with some prescience by
Miss Squire, on the probable effect of introduction into the English law
of a requirement (such as there was then in the French law) specifically
limiting the weights that might be lifted, carried, or moved by young
workers and women. It has special interest in view of wartime
experience, in national factories, of State control of labour-saving
appliances to prevent overstrain of women and girls.
“We should probably see,” she said, “a speedy increase in mechanical
means of lifting and carrying in factories and workshops, such as
hoists and cranes, trollies, endless bands, and other contrivances,
now so conspicuous by their absence.... The introduction of such
apparatus would not mean displacing of women and girls, it would only
increase their remunerative work, for most of these affected are
pieceworkers, and the time now taken up by journeys to and fro,
fetching and carrying their materials or work, would be occupied in
manufacture, and increase both their wages and the output of their
departments.
“It is pitiable to see young growing girls employed as beasts of
burden, staggering under loads that men hesitate to lift—yet in some
trades this is an ordinary sight.... In brick-making, in tinplate
works, in iron hollow ware, and in warehouses in hardware trades, I
have found girls aged thirteen to seventeen carrying loads which
weighed from 30 pounds to 111 pounds in the ordinary course of their
employment. Many are the complaints of weariness and overstrain made
to me by girls and young women—some of them mothers—who are too poor
or too unskilled to leave an employment which is making too great a
demand on their physical powers, and which in some instances has
caused serious injury.”[134]
I myself saw in a hollow ware works, and had weighed on the spot, a
weight of upwards of 50 pounds, consisting of piled-up galvanised iron
buckets, that a young girl had carried across a yard and up a steep
ladder steps without handrail. Yet even that seemed to me less serious
than the heavy loads of damp clay carried by thirteen-year-old boys in
Staffordshire Potteries, with strained looks and beads of perspiration
on their brows. This matter has been carefully regulated, thirteen years
later, by the special regulations for potteries.
In tinplate works girls of fourteen and fifteen years were found to be
carrying loads of sharp-edged plates, weighing 100 pounds and over: one
particularly small and slight girl of fourteen years was carrying 107
pounds with difficulty. Complaints were made of pains in the side and of
swellings and bruises from the heavy weight on the hip. In one tinplate
works boys with trollies were fetching and carrying the loads for the
girls, a measure said to be impossible in other tinplate works.
“Women are very much at the mercy of their foremen and of the men with
whom they work in such matters ... girls in a wire-bound hose factory
were slowly heaving up large coils of iron wire weighing 108 pounds
from stair to stair up a steep ladder staircase, resting at intervals
to take breath, while the foreman stood by and the rope for elevating
the coils to the girls’ machine-room hung idle.... The employer gave a
sharp reprimand when he was made aware of it.... An obligation not to
‘allow’ the lifting and carrying by young persons and women of weights
above a certain standard would probably best effect ... the adjusting
of work or the wages, the increased vigilance to protect the weak from
being imposed upon, or the provision of labour-saving appliances ...
required to remove the evil.”[135]
Remarkable examples were given by Miss Martindale between 1902 and 1904
of weights, and aggregate material, handled or moved in a day, in
potteries and brickworks—_e.g._, quarry bricks weighing 50 pounds each
were carried by a woman or girl to the kiln and handed up to a man to
place; girls wheeled barrows containing forty bricks weighing 9 pounds
each; a girl handled 55 tons of clay a day in lifting bricks from a
machine;[136] a boy of fourteen years weighing 77 pounds fetched clay
for a moulder who worked in a shop up a steep flight of stairs, the
weight of the piece of clay he was carrying was 69 pounds;[137] a
delicate girl of fourteen years fetched on an average three to five
lumps of clay an hour for the moulder, and was found carrying 67 pounds;
a girl of seventeen fetched clay for eleven moulders, bringing them each
four lumps a day, each lump weighing ½ cwt. The mother remarked to the
Inspector on the exhausted state in which her daughter returned home
after doing “men’s work”;[138] a boy of thirteen years was found
struggling up a steep flight of stairs carrying clay weighing 78 pounds.
Patient observations of this kind went on in numerous industries year
after year, and the mass of material in the published Annual Reports is
great. Ventilation of the question led to its inclusion in various Home
Office Orders of Regulations (_e.g._, fruit preserving works in 1907,
potteries in 1913). The most important step, however, was the passing of
Clause 3 (4) in the Employment of Children Act, 1903: “A child shall not
be employed to lift, carry, or move anything so heavy as to be likely to
cause injury to the child,” and “child” was defined as a person under
the age of fourteen years. In due course the Factory Inspectors took
cases into court under this clause, and penalties were obtained. Public
opinion awakened to the evil, and much good was done by the Inspectors
when they simply called the attention of many employers to the need of
limiting weights lifted and carried by young growing workers. When Miss
Lovibond, for example, drew the attention of employers in Burnley to
heavy cloth carrying by children, they made no objection to
discontinuing the practice. In 1909 in the glass factories of Sunderland
women were working in pairs carrying large iron trays piled with flint
glass dishes weighing up to 120 pounds, cumbersome as well as heavy to
carry. “The difficulty could be overcome by suitable mechanical means,
and it is satisfactory that in these cases the danger had only to be
pointed out to have it remedied, although we were told that for forty
years the women had thus been beasts of burden.”[139] In 1912 in the
Staffordshire Potteries the employment of men instead of boys for
carrying, together with the increased use of trollies, is mentioned as a
consequence of the action of the Inspectors in drawing attention to the
subject of injurious weight carrying, and particularly to the
prohibition in the Employment of Children Act, 1903. In Manchester
“making-up” warehouses many instances were found of girls and women
carrying pieces of cotton cloth weighing from 60 to 70 pounds, a great
strain and a continual grievance; serious cases of overstrain resulting
in absences from work, unnoticed by employer, were traced by Women
Inspectors visiting their homes. In answer to the employers’ plea that
the women were themselves to blame, the Inspectors pointed to the
systematic laying of pieces weighing 70 pounds by men on the shoulders
of women (slight, city and slum dwellers, and undeveloped girls), who
filed past the men to receive the cloth delivered by a chute from a room
above. Similar and greater overstrain was found by Miss Squire and her
staff in Lancashire among weavers lifting loom weights at the back of
their looms. The injury caused is “often not noticed until later in
life.”[140] Improvements in both these classes of cases were reported in
1913.
Of all the various ways of using a part of the human body in a
disproportionate or unsuitable manner to perform an industrial operation
for which a mechanical contrivance should be used, I may mention here
the one that appears most frequently in my Annual Reports. The “licking
of labels” by girls or boys instead of moistening the gum on the labels
by pads or a machine was brought to my notice by a thoughtful employer
in a country thread mill, in the first year of my service with the
Factory Department, as a very undesirable practice specially injurious
to the health of young workers. I investigated this practice, and
finding it in fact frequent, and associated with signs such as swollen
glands in the neck, I reported the matter for further enquiry by the
Dangerous Trades Committee. They found that this was a practice not only
in thread mills, but also in silk and aerated water industries, and
probably in other trades also, and that in a large Lancashire thread
mill the tickets for bobbins were almost entirely moistened by twelve
full-time young workers, licking up to fifty gross labels, and thirty-
five half-timers, licking up to twenty-five gross labels a day, while a
woman managed to lick forty-five gross a day. As the firms concerned
abandoned the practice in favour of a damper when attention was drawn to
the subject, no regulation was recommended, and the Committee merely
laid stress on their opinion that such a practice could not but be
prejudicial to health, particularly at an age when growth is active and
the system requires all its digestive secretions, even if the gum used
were perfectly pure. More serious injury might be done if infective
organic material or poisons were present on the labels.[141]
Many years’ pursuit of this subject by the Inspectors showed that the
effective cause of the continuance of the undesirable, and sometimes
injurious, practice was the pressure for rapid output; under a system of
piecework remuneration a young worker could, by use of tongue and
saliva, acquire a rapidity exceeding the speed obtained from the use of
any available hand-damper. By persistent work the Women Inspectors
tracked down factory after factory where the method continued, and got
the practice stopped. The last bad instances reported on were by Miss
Whitlock, M.B., in 1912, in an Irish mill, where she found girls fixing
blue labels to a bronze band wrapped round balls of thread. They had to
lick the whole surface of the blue label, and although not continuously
engaged on the work, a girl would label as many as 960 balls in a day.
They suffered from soreness of lips and tongue and bad taste in the
mouth, while a mother seen at home said her daughter had lost her
appetite and “failed terribly” while at this work. She took her away
from it, and the girl had quite recovered her health when employed as a
spinner. Not only did the manager abolish the licking by providing and
enforcing use of dampers, he also raised the labellers’ piece rates by
one-third. It is a valuable example, for it is not seldom that
introduction of improved methods of working may cost the workers more in
immediate loss of wages than it is possible for them to afford.[142]
Among the industries other than thread-spooling where licking was
checked by the Inspectors, were packeting of sweets (in gelatine bags
closed by licking), siphon-labelling, tin-labelling, and cigar-banding.
In 1903 I was able to give an account of a good power-driven machine for
punching labels and pasting them on to thread-spools which I had seen
that year at work in silk mills in the Grand Duchy of Baden, a health
and time-saving machine doing the work very efficiently.[143]
Accidents causing bodily injury or loss of life, and problems of safety
connected with fencing of machinery[144] moved by mechanical power, and
other special safeguards against explosion, escape of steam, falls,
etc., involve highly technical questions. In factory industry as a whole
they affect male workers in a far higher degree than female workers; in
1920 there were more than thirty times as many fatal accidents to men as
to women, and more than nine times as many accidents non-fatal as well
as fatal to men as to women.[145] Thus the first concern of the Women
Inspectors, lacking as they did at the beginning knowledge and
experience in these matters, was to refer risks of accident, observed by
them in connection with unfenced machinery, to Men Inspectors in charge
of districts. These then took the action or gave the instruction to the
occupiers, and we were thus left free for concentration on the urgent
questions already touched on, to which we could bring new and
indispensable contributions.
The Women Inspectors, however, took great interest in complaints made to
them by the women of dangers and of accidents actually occurring. They
soon gathered useful facts by their own observation, and the interest
rapidly grew as they began to see the close connection of accidents with
conditions of labour—other than fencing of danger points—including
pressure for output, long hours, and very low rates of pay under the
piecework system, as well as methods of lighting the factory.
It soon appeared to them probable that the effectual prevention of
accidents rested not only on skill in fencing, but on detailed study of
conditions, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, on responsible
supervision of all conditions by good management in the factories and
workshops. The knowledge they steadily acquired, through following up
complaints, of the immense suffering and loss to individual workers and
through them to national production, by preventible maiming and injury,
led them to give increasing time to study of the subject.[146]
The important amendment of the code governing notice of accidents in the
workplace and their investigation by the Inspectorate, that came into
operation on January 1, 1896, brought them new opportunities of
acquiring information. It became compulsory for every occupier to keep a
register of the accidents occurring in the factory or workshop of which
notice had to be sent to the Inspector for the district, and to enter
particulars in the register regarding such accidents within a week of
their occurrence. Immediate access to this register certainly increased
the value of an inspection. It acted as a finger-post to special causes
of accidental injury to workers in the particular workplace. Much more
important, however, for practical knowledge of broad means of preventing
accidents was access to a general review of dominating risks in an
industry as a whole. This opportunity came to me and my staff as an
unforeseen consequence of the devolution in 1898 upon a Woman Inspector
of district charge of a “special” district containing a particularly
large number of all kinds of power-driven and hand laundries,[147] as
well as factories and workshops in which the making of wearing apparel
was carried on. It was soon discovered that, so far as practical
prevention of accidents went, the Inspector in charge of the special
district, by receipt of notices of accidents, by thorough investigation
of their circumstances and of the complaints of the workers, by
conferences with laundry and other engineers and study of safety
appliances, largely made up for her initial lack of training as an
engineer. Lack of engineering training was not confined to Women
Inspectors; and, as laundries first came under the Factory Act after the
Women Inspectors were appointed, a special opportunity arose for them of
acquiring useful new knowledge which was then available for the whole
Factory Department. This opportunity was seized, the sympathies of a
considerable number of laundry occupiers and engineers were aroused, and
fruitful experiments were rapidly begun in this small special district
in development of guards for the prevention of extremely painful and
frequently maiming accidents—chiefly to fingers, hands, and arms, and
largely to young workers—on ironing machinery, wringers, hydro-
extractors—in fact, on the most dangerous machines in laundry plant. The
comparatively recent development of specialised power-driven machinery
in laundries, and the incidence of the most painful accidents on young
girl workers, tended to melt away opposition (on the part of occupiers)
to the Inspectors’ zeal for encouraging early trial of automatically
acting guards for preventing such accidents. An ingrained habit of
regarding accidents as somewhat unavoidable was not, in laundries, a
legacy from the past, nor had it been acquired by the industry, and the
presence of women as manageresses and owners (as well as their being the
great majority of the workers) led to a ready acceptance of a Woman
Inspector as one likely to know something about the subject. The
systematic tabulation of classified causes of all serious accidents in
laundries soon brought to their notice, further helped to a reasonable
outlook on the problems of fencing.
During the first two years of responsibility for this special district,
with so many laundries in it, we studied the conditions, the machines,
the time, and other circumstances in the occurrence of the accidents,
but I soon felt that a wider body of statistical information, from all
over the country, was needed to strengthen our demand for use of good
guards on the dangerous machines.[148] I therefore examined every report
by a certifying surgeon to the Chief Inspector on an accident in a
laundry from every part of the United Kingdom, and tabulated these
according to source or causation of the injury and according to age and
sex of the workers. The results were published in the Annual Report for
1902, and the work of tabulation was thereafter carried on for me by
Miss Tracey down to 1914. At first the reporting of the accidents was
incomplete, and the total annual number gradually rose from 289 in 1901
to 435 in 1908, after which, in spite of great increase of employment in
factory laundries, and in use of dangerous power-driven ironing
machinery, the total number of accidents in the industry annually on the
whole declined, the average for the five years 1909 to 1913 being 391·4.
In all these years the classification of sources of accidents was
unchanged, the material risks had been rightly inferred at the outset
from close examination of the machines and from investigation of
individual accidents. The stress we laid on the value of automatic
guards for stopping indrawing rollers (risk arising from feeding all
kinds of articles in between the rollers) was justified by the
proportionate decline in number and severity of these accidents.
Probably in few other industries were accidents so predominantly caused
by definite danger points in power-driven machines. Out of a total
during twelve years of 4,235 accidents reported on by certifying
surgeons (including scalds and burns, which numbered 379), 2,648 were
caused by indrawing rollers of ironing and wringing machines, and an
abnormally high proportion affected girls under eighteen years of age—
who were so largely employed in machine-ironing.[149] These facts were
brought out at a conference of the Department with the laundry trade in
1910, at an interesting exhibition of laundry machinery, where the
latest developments in machinery and guards could be studied. After this
conference a memorandum standardising fencing of laundry machinery was
issued to the trade.[150] Definite steps in this direction had been made
possible by the concentrated work of the Women Inspectors on the
industry, first when they were definitely instructed to follow up
fencing in laundries throughout the kingdom, and secondly when, from
1908, all accidents affecting women and girls in laundries were referred
to the Senior Women Inspectors in the various divisions for
investigation and the necessary action.
The industry was not one in which the general risks of accident were
high; the total accidents and the accident rate were small compared with
those of other industries. Without such concentrated team-work on the
question, the predominant risks would probably long have escaped
effective observation and control, and the painful and maiming accidents
to many young girls would have been obscured by the greater roll of
accidents in other industries; they would have failed to receive the
effectual check that they in fact did receive in consequence of the
assignment to this branch of the Inspectorate of a special opportunity
and responsibility in relation to the trade. It is an interesting
illustration of the value of special work on selected trades, and raises
the question whether such special work is not an adjunct that is
indispensable for efficiency in a system of administration by area or
territorial districts.
Important prosecutions were taken from time to time, and repeatedly
penal compensation was obtained and applied to the benefit of workers
injured through neglect of the occupier to provide or maintain good
guards. In 1913 an unusually interesting prosecution, of importance for
Scottish laundry workers, was taken by the late Miss Vines in the
Edinburgh Sheriff Court, for a failure to fence securely the intake of a
calender in consequence of which neglect a young girl had lost the use
of her hand.[151] It was keenly contested, and Miss Vines’s account of
the hearing may well be remembered here:
“A plea of ‘not guilty’ was tendered, and evidence was led at
considerable length—I had eleven witnesses—as to the question of
secure fencing. At the time of the accident the feed of the calender
was fenced only by a fixed bar guard, while our contention was as to
the necessity of the provision of an automatic guard. We had expert
evidence from two witnesses, one the member of a large firm of laundry
engineers, the other Miss Perry, whose evidence, owing to her
university degree in engineering, carried considerable weight. The
advocate for the respondents also had two expert witnesses. In my
argument I referred to the case of Schofield v. Schunk (1855) 24 L. T.
(o.s.), 253, in which it is laid down that the machinery must be
fenced according to the best method known at the time, not merely in
the manner usual in the best regulated factories in the district.
After a hearing of some hours the Sheriff convicted, saying that he
thought it clear from the evidence that the fence consisting of a
fixed bar was not of a satisfactory nature, and that an improved type
was now largely used.”
A similar responsibility and opportunity arose in the wholesale clothing
trades, but the accident risks were far smaller and chiefly due to
“transmission machinery”—_e.g._, shafting, driving bands and pulleys to
sewing machines, found also in many other trades—these risks being
already well known. The one really new contribution there made by the
studies of the Women Inspectors lay in needle-puncturing accidents with
septic results, from the use of power-driven sewing machines driven at a
very high speed, 2,000 to 3,000 stitches a minute. Analysis of reported
accidents showed that in 1907 35 per cent. of the total accidents to
women and girls in clothing factories arose from this cause, and of
these not far short of one-fifth resulted in septic poisoning and
consequent great loss of time. Often the needle has to be removed
surgically, and sometimes X-rays applied. A needle may enter the finger
several times before the hand can be withdrawn, and serious injury
sometimes results. So far no guard had been devised to prevent these
accidents. Next year over 40 per cent. of the accidents to women and
girls in clothing factories were due to this cause, and in relation to
these and other injuries the importance of skilled first-aid was brought
out. In 1909 again the very great loss of working time and health
through these accidents, at first classed as “slight,” was illustrated,
and the extra urgency of first-aid where invention of preventive
safeguards against the accidents was still lacking was further pressed
home. In one large clothing factory seven out of twelve accidents were
of this nature, and in even the slightest of them the workers had been
absent from work several weeks.[152] Enquiry of a systematic kind was
made into the arrangements provided by the employers for rendering
first-aid at the works from this time on by the Women Inspectors—not
only when investigating these, but all kinds of accidents. It was found
that the very enquiry and the recording of results on the point
stimulated employers already doing good work in this direction, and that
it aroused others to a new interest in the matter. Miss Whitlock’s
investigations showed how greatly lack of knowledge of first-aid
increased suffering to the injured person. For example, “a child’s head
was badly scalded with boiling starch, and the wound made worse by the
forewoman immediately bathing it in cold water. When a young woman was
scalped in a clothing factory, time was lost in getting her attended to,
for no one knew the quickest way in which to get in touch with the
ambulance authorities; neither did anyone think of removing the scalp
from the overhead shafting until an hour after the accident, so that by
the time it arrived at the infirmary it was too cold to treat in the
usual way in such cases.”[153]
Tin cutting, pen-making, metallic capsule making, bottle washing, and
many other processes furnished for our observation cases of septic
poisoning, following relatively slight accidents, which strengthened our
appeal for systematic development of first-aid in industry. It was
wartime pressure for output that ultimately clinched our argument as to
its value from the standpoint of production as well as of humanity.
One example out of many may be cited to illustrate how guards preventing
accidents were secured systematically on a machine when its danger was
brought to our notice. Teazle-brushing machines in hosiery factories
thus arrested the attention of Miss Squire and Miss Tracey almost
simultaneously. Miss Squire was interested in complaints of dust, Miss
Tracey was engaged in tabulating accidents affecting women and girls in
the hosiery trade for my information. The former saw the points of
danger apparent in the machine which was new to her, and heard of severe
accidents from the indrawing teazle-covered rollers for the brushing of
hosiery. Miss Tracey presented the fact that seven out of the fourteen
reported accidents from this machine in 1906 were “severe.” Guards were
asked for through the District Inspector, and in 1909 I was glad to see
that accidents had been consequently reduced to three for the year.[154]
CHAPTER V
EMPLOYMENT OF MOTHERS; YOUNG WORKERS; CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS
“Every wise woman buildeth her house.”
“Give your women economic freedom, assure them access to the sources
of culture and you can safely leave eugenic experimentation to them”
(“Interpretations and Forecasts,” by Victor Branford, 1914).
Hitherto this survey of women’s life in the factory and workshop has
simply accepted the fact of productive labour by women and its clear
social and economic necessity. While admitting the existence of
differences and handicaps, physiological and social, that in part
distinguish them from male industrial workers, we have only, in one
instance, touched on the influence of marriage and maternity on their
employment. The sinister secondary effects of lead poisoning on maternal
functions inevitably raised question of factors that, in a civilised
community, must place certain limits or conditions on complete liberty
of women’s employment in factory production as hitherto carried on.
This, already long recognised in the United Kingdom in regulations
excluding women and young persons from some of the most dangerous lead
processes, has been followed or extended in other industrial countries
since the Washington Convention.
No one will deny, said the Report of the Women’s Employment Committee,
1919, that “woman should be guarded from strain, from accident and
racial poison, to a greater degree than man is guarded,” and that report
fairly indicated standards and tests of suitability in occupations for
women.
In this present chapter we pass from the general human considerations
controlling industrial conditions over to special groups of persons,
where the “human machine” to be safeguarded can least of all be regarded
simply as an economic, producing unit. Here the interest of the
community as well as of the individual requires consideration from a new
angle of vision.
Children, the earliest objects of humanitarian aims in the factory
system, came first under a Factory Act in 1802 in certain textile
factories; adult women first in 1844. Not until 1891 (after the Berlin
Conference in 1890) was any provision whatever made in this country for
obviating the necessity of employment of a woman too early after
childbirth—in a factory system such as that we have been considering in
previous chapters. And then it came only in the form of a prohibition of
employment: “An occupier of a factory or workshop shall not knowingly
allow a woman to be employed therein within four weeks after she has
given birth to a child.”[155] Effects, not causes, seem alone to have
been held in view; what was to become of the woman, without other
resources, seeking employment at such a time, was left to be
sufficiently disclosed by the Women Factory Inspectors, who from 1896
onwards tried to give effect to the prohibition by warnings and
prosecutions of the occupier so far as he could be shown to be legally
responsible for infringements.
Inmates of charitable and reformatory institutions, engaged in
production or manual labour of the nature covered by the Factory Acts
and not already under Government inspection (as in workhouses, prisons,
certified homes, etc.), first seem to have come, somewhat accidentally,
under serious consideration in connection with these Acts through
proposals to include laundries within their scope. For laundry work was
by far the most general industrial occupation in charitable and
reformatory institutions—where the work was done not for the institution
itself but for outside clients, although not carried on by way of trade,
and where the inmates were not working under a contract of service or
apprenticeship. Occupiers of ordinary commercial laundries were willing
to be included within the Act only if these institutions were also
included. The opposition of the institutions was, however, sufficient to
secure their exclusion from the Act of 1895, which in some degree
covered commercial laundries; they remained outside until partially
brought in by the Act of 1907, after we had for some years inspected
convent laundries on a voluntary basis. Opposition of the managers
melted away steadily, as the advantages of friendly advisory inspections
were experienced.
For all but the last of these three classes of specially protected
workers, the legal or the administrative position has substantially
changed at the close of the period 1893 to 1921. And most of all has it
changed in the care of child-bearing women employed in industry, who
were before 1911 completely dependent on the Woman Factory Inspector for
disclosure of evidence on their position. The change in the
administrative point of view is most quickly realised when one recalls
the fact that responsibility for applying the prohibition of employment
in factories and workshops of women after childbirth has in 1921 been
transferred from the Home Office to the Ministry of Health by Order of
His Majesty in Council. It is thus formally recognised as a “matter
affecting and incidental to the health of the people.”
The cases of employment within four weeks of childbirth were frequent in
our experience. As it was generally extreme poverty or desertion or
illness of the husband that drove mothers back to work, and the
prohibition was well known (being included in the official abstract of
the Acts affixed in the workplace), they would in some way conceal the
date of birth from the occupier or manager, or sometimes change the
place of employment. Thus in comparatively few instances could any legal
action be taken at all; even where it could, the painful dilemma of the
suffering woman became evident.
The first case taken into court under Section 17 of 1891 was in the year
1897, by Miss Squire. It was a clear case for testing the effect of the
section, and it revealed much. The mother, working in a textile mill,
had been sent for by the foreman, who was short of workers, on the ninth
day after her confinement, although he had been informed of the reason
of her absence on the day she left. Although she made some attempt to
screen her employers when called as a witness, she was dismissed from
their employment, after they had been convicted and fined. She obtained
employment from one of the magistrates soon after he had heard the case,
and this relieved her immediate need. The effect of this dismissal on
the minds of the other workers remained.[156]
In 1898 old and new difficulties attending the application of this
section again made action difficult or impossible. A laundry visited on
a complaint of infringement of the section yielded only the information
that the woman was at home, the regulation well known, and “as soon as
it was permissible she would return to work.” The Inspector, wishing to
make sure of all the facts, “went straightway to see the woman in her
home, and found her in the act of doing heavy washing for the laundry in
question.” The occupier was only legally responsible for knowingly
employing the woman in his laundry within four weeks of childbirth,
accordingly he had “sent the work to be done in the home. The laundry
was clean and the surroundings ... in point of fatigue-saving appliances
incomparably superior” to those in which the woman was found. “Her
husband was a labourer, she had four living children, and the entire
family inhabited two rooms; the woman was washing over a tub raised on
two stools in one of the rooms, a small paved and drained yard lay at
the back; it was a rainy day, and she had pulled the tub into the room
to be under cover from the wet; she dragged it into the yard to empty
when needful.”[157] More often the difficulty of taking action turned on
the impossibility of proving knowledge of facts on the part of the
occupier, a knowledge which in such a matter it was only natural he
should avoid. In any case it was shortly discovered that a young mother
of sixteen or seventeen was not covered by the section, being not a
“woman,” as defined in the Act (_i.e._, a person of eighteen years and
over), but a “young person.” These enquiries soon drew my attention to
the high rate of infant mortality in districts where women were largely
employed in heavy labouring work, such as brick-making in the
Stourbridge area, and the galvanised bucket industry in the Lye
district, and some enquiries were made to learn how far such work
affected infant life.
In 1902 a conviction, with penalty, was again secured in one of the
instances of re-employment of a woman within four weeks of childbirth.
In another case of re-employment—this time within a fortnight of
childbirth—in a wholesale clothing factory, although a deplorable state
of affairs was disclosed, action was impossible owing to the entire lack
of evidence of responsibility for supervision anywhere in the place. The
Inspector took occasion to press home the need of superintendence by a
competent woman, which in this case was promised by the employer. She
found that young single women going to the workhouse for a confinement
were usually discharged at the end of a fortnight if their state of
health made it possible, with the result that their re-employment within
three weeks was practically unavoidable.
The whole position was, as Miss Squire put it in 1897, that “Section 17
of 1891, although of so great importance to the community no less than
the individual, must remain for the most part a dead letter owing to the
difficulty of proving the employer’s knowledge of all the circumstances,
as well as for other obvious reasons.”[158]
A welcome opportunity for wider dissemination of knowledge and
understanding of the whole problem of employment of mothers arose
through the appointment of the inter-Departmental Committee on Physical
Deterioration in September, 1903. An invitation was extended to me to
give oral evidence on the effects of factory and workshop employment on
the health of women and girls, which I did at some length. Fuller
information was sought by the Committee on the effect of industrial
employment of mothers both on themselves and their infants. By the help
of my colleagues, I set intensive study of the matter on foot in three
separate and distinctive industrial centres for women’s employment: in
Dundee (jute trade), in Lancashire, in Preston, Burnley, and Blackburn
(cotton trade), in the Staffordshire Potteries, in Hanley and Longton
(earthenware and china trade). Two of these towns, Dundee and Preston,
were particularly characterised by an absence of employment for men of
the same class as the women so largely employed. In all the centres of
study infantile mortality was high, although not higher than rates to be
found elsewhere—_e.g._, in mining centres where mothers are not
industrially employed. Widely varying conditions in local sanitation and
housing obtained in these towns. Wide variation also was present in
nature of the industrial work done by the women, speed and pressure of
work, length of daily hours, presence of dust or lead in the processes,
and other circumstances.
The main effect of this enquiry, with the following up of many cases of
re-employment of mothers after childbirth, was to establish more clearly
than ever before that such re-employment was not, as had hitherto been
often alleged, largely caused by the women’s preference for factory over
domestic life, but by the pressure of poverty, or actual want, on the
mothers. Much help was given by officers of the local health authorities
in making the enquiry.
In 1904 I presented to the Committee a memorandum on “Employment of
Mothers in Factories and Workshops,” containing full details, and what
the Committee described as a “wealth of information” from the three
Inspectors, Miss Paterson, Miss Squire, and Miss Martindale, who had
carried out my scheme of enquiry. The Committee gave full publicity to
the results in the memorandum, including it as an appendix in their
report, besides favourably commenting on its conclusions. They further
definitely recommended fuller investigation, on the lines suggested,
into infant mortality rates; locally, for particular areas in industrial
towns, and into general infant mortality rates for selected industries
throughout the country, and the specifying of the occupation of all
mothers (married or unmarried) in the Registrar-General’s records. They
also recommended a strengthening of the prohibition of employment within
four weeks, either by throwing onus of proof on the employer or by
requiring a medical certificate from the mother.
The Committee attached great importance to observations of the
Inspectors in the memorandum on the stress and strain involved, through
many existing conditions in factory life, “in the employment of women
from girlhood, all through married life, and through child-bearing”;
they specially noted the fact that when decreasing physical capacity
brought the prospective mother “at least some relief at the hands of the
manager of the mill and she is sent away,” it is often only “to take up
the equally unsuitable occupation of charwoman or scrubber.” No general
notion had then arisen, or at least it had not been publicly expressed,
that national responsibility for release of child-bearing women from
wage-paid employment should be recognised by the provision of some form
of maintenance at the time of their greatest need. The Committee, on
this financial point, only included in their recommendations a
suggestion that “charitable efforts in manufacturing towns might be
directed towards endowing and maintaining insurance organisations to
which employees, assisted by voluntary subscriptions, could contribute
while in work, and from which they might receive assistance during a
confinement and afterwards.” I had pointed, in my memorandum, to the
experience at Mulhouse in Alsace that organisation of a maternity fund
by manufacturers, to which both employer and employed contributed, had
resulted in a reduction of infant mortality by half. I had also
suggested that “whether by local trade effort, or larger national
effort, provident insurance of the kind might be expected in time to
eliminate the cases where infant lives are lost ... and needless
suffering caused to hard-working, valuable mothers by total absence of
skilled attendance.” I had also laid stress on the need for fundamental
reorganisation of antiquated charities, in harmony “with increased
scientific knowledge,” and with the “changed economic conditions of
women’s lives.”
On this side the earliest help that came was, of course, through the
National Health Insurance Act of 1911. In 1904, and onwards down to
1913, Women Factory Inspectors continued to gather and to present
information on this subject, which never seemed to them less poignant in
the details, though it took seven years to issue in any provision for
the sufferers. A summary of all that we learned, as Miss H. F. Cohen
said when she prepared such a summary from my Annual Reports for the
Women’s Employment Committee in 1919, “gives only a faint idea of the
state of things—it is only the cumulative effect of instance after
instance which enables one to realise the impotence of the law.”
In 1904, in twenty-one cases of employment within four weeks of
childbirth investigated in Scotland by two Women Inspectors, only three
were found suitable for proceedings, and a conviction was recorded in
only one. “The others were dismissed, one without trial, on the ground
that a Limited Liability Company could not be charged with the offence;
the other on the ground that the woman was not “knowingly” employed,
although it was proved that the reason for leaving the mill was known to
the foreman, who re-engaged her without enquiry. In the majority of
cases the woman did not return to the same factory as that in which she
worked before confinement.” In a very bad case of re-employment at one
and the same works the woman, working under a contractor, was employed
in very laborious work, the setting and drawing of kilns. The manager of
the works ordered the contractor to send her home, as she was obviously
not in a fit condition to do the work. Ten days after the child’s birth
she was re-engaged by the manager who had ordered her to be sent home,
and employed at the same place in loading wheelbarrows at the canal bank
and other work. “Sixteen days after its birth the child died.... The
occupier, who goes daily to the works, endeavoured to shift the legal
responsibility on to the manager, the latter on to the contractor. Until
the Woman Inspector put the matter before them in what was evidently a
new light, it had not occurred to anyone that it was worth
consideration, or that even a legal, let alone a moral responsibility,
rested on anyone.”[159] In Lancashire, in the same year, one out of many
cases of too early re-employment was taken into court. The fact that the
mother was back at her loom fourteen days after the birth of the child
was proved; it was also proved that the manager and tackler, as well as
her fellow-workers, knew the reason for the weaver’s absence, but the
case was dismissed (after long and earnest deliberation by the
magistrate), because the manager had not had the simple enquiry made as
to the age of the child, and therefore did not “knowingly” allow her to
be employed. In this case the reason for the return was poverty, the
husband being out of work, and the woman had been alone and untended at
the birth of her child. The futility of the unamended law for the
protection of industrial mothers against pressure of either poverty or
negligence was more than established.
“Some of the most pathetic incidents came to one’s knowledge,” says
Miss Paterson, in some notes written at my request for this book, “in
the administration of the section which requires absence of mothers
from work for the short period of four weeks after the birth of a
child, for the poverty or the fear of permanent loss of employment
which drives her to cut short her time for recovery generally means
that she is indeed in straits. Customs vary in different parts of the
country, and it is Scotland that is in my mind chiefly when the figure
comes before me of the work-worn woman who appeared to have a choice
to make whether she would go out to work or stay at home and work, but
who had in reality no alternative but to earn, at once, what she
could. ‘If he could bring in a pound a week constant,’ said the wife
of an unskilled labourer to me, ‘I would never think of going out,’
and I believe this represents the feeling of the Scottish married
women, though they would not all put their minimum at so modest a
figure.”
In the returns of persons employed in factories and workshops for 1907
the first attempt was made to obtain official figures to show the extent
of employment of married women in industry. The information could only
be obtained by voluntary returns, which were in many cases not
forthcoming. On the figures so obtained it appeared that in textile
factories 24·1 per cent. were married, 71·8 per cent. unmarried, and 4·1
per cent. widowed; in non-textile factories 16·3 per cent. were married,
79·3 per cent. unmarried, and 4·4 per cent. widowed. A high proportion
of power-driven laundries made the return, and in these 28 per cent. of
the women were married.
The worst cases of too early employment of mothers did not, however,
necessarily appear in the industries that were most characteristically
women’s, but rather in poor or underpaid industries and in towns or
districts where women were largely employed without a sufficient balance
of men’s staple industries to enable the husband and father to be the
main breadwinner of the family. Any high degree of unemployment for the
latter, of course, immediately affected the security of the mother’s
support at the time of child-bearing. Many of the worst examples of too
early employment after childbirth came primarily from that cause.
“I know,” wrote Miss Paterson in 1907, “of no more tragic figure than
that of the toil-worn woman striving ... to do the work of two persons
with, as her background, the unemployed or insufficiently employed
man ... desolate and oppressed are the words which seem then to
describe her the best.”[160]
Some of the very worst examples came to our knowledge in the five years
preceding the modest relief that came for maternity through the National
Health Insurance Act of 1911. In that year, at the Congress of the Royal
Sanitary Institute at Belfast, Miss Martindale gave an address on
Hygiene and Industrial Employment, in which she stated that in that city
she had “come across women returning to work of a hard manual nature,
entailing hours of standing, within ten days, and even four days of
their confinement.” She was convinced that “no woman would return to
work within the month if it were not poverty which compelled her to do
so. As one poor tired woman remarked, ‘Could I remain away from work for
more than a fortnight with five children under six years of age starving
at home?’” The emigration of men in Ireland often threw the burden of
breadwinning on to the women.
To those who wish to understand, even partially, the extent of suffering
and injury endured by poor working mothers before any national attempt
was made to help them at the time of childbirth, I can only say that the
subject must be further studied in the section of my Annual Reports from
1907 to 1911 dealing with employment of women before and after
childbirth.[161] The monotonous recital, year after year, of facts
revealed by complaints investigated can alone give any idea of the
matter. One characteristic example must close the recital here. The
occupier of the factory had not “knowingly” re-employed the mother
within the four weeks’ limit; the woman’s husband, a carter, had been
out of work seven weeks before the confinement, and the Guardians gave
relief in money and kind for fourteen days after the birth. The third
week they refused an application for continuance of the relief, and the
woman returned to her employment—her husband being still workless. The
Inspector asked the health visitor to interest herself in the matter and
secure assistance if possible for the woman. Section 61 of the Act of
1901 only took effect generally by bringing to our knowledge facts that
might otherwise be overlooked, and prevented inconsiderate employers
from directly requiring women to return to work too soon after the birth
of a child.[162] Ultimately, when due care has been secured for the
poorest child-bearing woman, the tale of their past suffering and
neglect will seem a terrible and incredible thing.
Let us now turn to the young worker in industry. Strong though the
appeal of this subject was to the Women Inspectors—taking much of their
time and thought—in a sense it lies outside the limits of this book, and
it is far too great for adequate notice in a fraction of a chapter. A
few illustrations of ways in which we came in touch with industrial
employment of children must suffice. “Children in the factory” is a
thought that irresistibly carries memory back to tragic past wrongdoing,
in cruel overstrain and misuse of children’s forces that no one of our
race or nationality can cheerfully recall to mind. Yet we are bidden by
the foremost historian of the factory system, Mr. Whately Cooke-Taylor,
never to suffer the story to be forgotten lest its pitiful warnings
against the blinding power of false doctrine should also die out.[163]
The earliest legal remedies for the worst evils of child labour under
the factory system were threshed out in the first half of the nineteenth
century by English men themselves, long before it was imaginable that
women might enter the Civil Service and help as Factory Inspectors to
apply these remedies. It was, indeed, through the sufferings of little
children that the whole humanitarian movement for reform of factory life
by law and administrative action began, and that it found its chance to
grow against many and powerful adversaries, as may be seen in the life
of Anthony Ashley Cooper, Lord Shaftesbury.
The sacrifice of the young workers made the first opening through the
outer framework or crust of society, built up as it had been in the
nineteenth century on a basis of “machinery and steam.”[164] The
children had been drawn, as the children were drawn by the Pied Piper,
“A wondrous portal opened wide
As if a cavern were suddenly hollowed;
And the Piper advanced and the children followed.”
They had been drawn into the factories as helpless dependents of the
machine for the purely economic reasons that were then generally deemed
valid and all-sufficient. In turn, they furnished the most unanswerable
argument against the doctrine of _laissez faire_, and thus involuntarily
helped to bring about its discredit.
The main provisions in the Factory Acts for protection of the young
worker had been framed, and the very worst evils repressed, when Women
Inspectors entered the service in the last decade of the “economic”
century. Yet much remained to be done, as has already been seen in
certain examples of hardness and barbarity, particularly in Chapter II.
The very institution of the “half-time system,” which first came as an
enlightened practical remedy for excessively long daily hours, and as
the original provision for compulsory elementary education, had in our
early official days begun to be more than suspected as an evil in itself
among reformers. It lingered until the close of the War, for its
prestige had been great; it had grown into the very structure of textile
industries; and it had secured at least that whatever schooling a
factory child had was given to it in the daytime. Many pages scattered
through Annual Reports of the Chief Inspector record the injurious
effects on health (as observed by Women Inspectors) following on the
attendance of young workers at night school permitted by some education
authorities in cases of family poverty, as a condition of allowing the
young worker of thirteen and fourteen to work full time during the day.
This latter point came out so markedly because of the close attention
that was given by myself and my staff to applying the provisions for
securing a reasonable degree of physical fitness in young workers in
factories. We did all in our power to bring home to parents as well as
employers that examination by the certifying surgeon of the child for
half-time or young person for full time employment, as to their physical
fitness for “working daily for the time allowed by law in the factory,”
was a serious, not a merely formal, matter. We freely used our powers as
Inspectors to suspend a child or young person for re-examination,
wherever it appeared to us that she was unfit by “disease or bodily
infirmity” for the daily work during the legal hours. Out of this came
the evidence that led to strengthening of the law by giving to the
certifying surgeon power to examine any process, and to qualify the
certificate by conditions as to the work on which a child or young
person is to be employed. The younger the child the greater our concern
for all this, and from the first we worked in close contact with the
teachers in the schools attended by half-timers, whose age or delicacy
called for our enquiry. Incredibly small and baby-like were some of the
eleven-year-old children still lawfully employed in factories up to the
year 1899. A few ten-year-old children were still lawfully employed in
1893 when the first Women Inspectors began their work.[165] In some
notes sent me by Miss Paterson at the close of 1921, written for this
book, she says:
“Amongst the changes in the law during my official service few were so
completely satisfactory as those which have contributed to the passing
of the half-timers. Each advance of a year in the age for entering on
employment was accompanied by gloomy forebodings of the result to
industry of preventing a child from acquiring facility while its
fingers were still supple—as if a non-wage-earning child sat with
hands folded in inaction—and (by some people) of the effects on
character of too much leisure in youth. A well-known sheriff added to
his reluctant convictions of several firms for illegal employment of
children an exhortation to me to consider carefully what I was doing
before bringing more such cases to this court. In his opinion I was
doing much to fill the place with young criminals who would have me to
thank to some extent for their ruin.”
Some remarkably enlightening information came out of enquiries made by
Miss Paterson in order to find an answer to the question, “What becomes
of young workers rejected by the certifying surgeon in a factory as
physically unfit for the work?” It was carried on, as much of our work
was, in co-operation with the certifying surgeon. In 1900 79 cases of
rejection were followed up to the child’s home, 56 having been rejected
as under age, 11 for weakness or disease of the eyes, 6 for skin
disease, 1 for deficient intelligence, and 5 for personation of another
older child. It became clear that the children did not go back to
school, that they tended to go either into casual employment outside the
factory system, or into a workshop where the certificates were not
required and where a register need not be kept, that the work they went
to was as hard as, or harder than, that for which they were rejected,
and that the children lived under pressure of circumstances impossible
for them to combat—sometimes selfishness, oftener the extreme poverty of
parents, sometimes carelessness or indifference of employers. This
information was embodied in evidence I gave to the Departmental
Committee on Employment of School Children in 1901,[166] and thus
fortunately became promptly utilised. The interest of the general
community in the matter became evident, and not only from the standpoint
of future efficiency of the child; for example, it was ascertained in
one case that a child rejected for a contagious skin disease went into a
process not under the Factory Act—namely, the picking and cleaning of
fruit for making preserves. The close enquiry into the reasons for
rejection brought out again very clearly what I had pressed forward
several years earlier, the unsatisfactoriness of the conditions of
publicity, noise, etc., under which the certifying surgeons had to make
their examination of the young worker in the factory and the handicap
they felt in trying to make it sufficiently thorough.[167] The
uselessness of a perfunctory examination became the clearer as one saw
more of the wide range of possible occupations in a large factory. It
was recommended on the results of this enquiry that better arrangements
should be made for the examination, that the surgeon should have power
to qualify his certificate, and that enquiry should be systematically
made as to what became of a rejected young worker. Miss Squire had two
years earlier laid bare, in vivid words, the narrow basis on which a
surgeon then had power to reject.
“The certificates must by law be granted if the child or young person
is of the proper age, and is not ‘incapacitated by disease or bodily
infirmity for working daily for the time allowed by law in the factory
named.’ The number of girls and boys so incapacitated is small; is the
number of those physically unfit for the employment to which they are
set also small? Certainly appearances in the factories are often
against such a conclusion. Many a factory is a town in itself; the
processes of manufacture carried on within its walls are as different
in character and conditions as they can be; a boy or girl is certified
as physically fit for them all. Yet it is conceivable that a child or
young person may be physically fit for one department or process and
physically unfit for another; quite fit, for example, in a silk mill
for winding, quite unfit for the intense heat of the gassing room;
quite fit in steel pen works for sorting or stamping, quite unfit for
the strained position and dust-laden atmosphere of the grinding shop;
quite fit in fancy box factories for pasting on the paper, quite unfit
for waiting on the glue room by carrying up and down heavy pails; or
physically strong for rough work, but with eyes unfit for strained
attention on work requiring close application. Could not certifying
surgeons have power to exclude from a certificate a specified
department or process, or to name in the certificate one department or
process only, and for this purpose have power of entry to factories in
order to see the work in relation to the child? In a district known to
me where both these powers are, with the co-operation of occupiers,
exercised, no one regards a certificate of fitness as an empty form; a
dead system has been galvanised into life.
“I have often thought whether the doctor who saw the little, delicate,
narrow-chested girl in the office, and was ‘satisfied that she was not
incapacitated by disease or bodily infirmity for working’ for the
legal time, were to see her as I see her in the stress and strain of
work toiling up flights of stairs with a load I cannot lift, streaming
with perspiration in steam and heat, bent double straining over minute
work, he would have been able to certify her as physically fit for
such employment had such a certificate been requisite. Having regard
to eyesight alone, what misery entailed by impaired vision might not
be spared by the exercise of a judicious control over the kind of
employment permitted to boys and girls with defective eyes.”
Frequently, when it was necessary for an Inspector to suspend a child or
young person from work until re-examined by the certifying surgeon, or
to prosecute an employer for neglect to obtain a certificate for the
young worker, it was found that the occupation itself had increased some
constitutional delicacy or weakness.[168] In such cases the young worker
had to be sent for medical treatment. Many prosecutions were taken for
entire failure to obtain the certificate, but so frequent was the
neglect that most of them were taken into court only after warning, and
on account of unhygienic conditions to which the young workers were
exposed. Heavy weight carrying and other kinds of injury have been dealt
with as regards workers generally in the chapter on dangerous trades.
Here I must record the strong impression early made on the Women
Inspectors by the liability of children to suffer overstrain of many
kinds in the factory, simply because of the general lack of sufficient
superintendence by someone whose duty it was to protect them, and
because of their own eagerness and readiness for effort. It was, as Miss
Paterson said, “almost incredible the extent to which details connected
with employment are allowed to be nobody’s business.”
“The use of heavy irons, carrying or dragging of heavy loads,
continuous strain of one kind or another, is just as often as not the
result of that want of thought on the part of responsible persons
which occasions, in all circumstances of life, so much misery, and
which it is so hard to overcome.... It was my duty early in the year
to take proceedings against a firm in whose factory I found a little
girl engaged in work for which she appeared to me to be physically
unfit. I served a notice on the firm requiring them to discontinue her
employment unless the certifying surgeon, on a re-examination, found
that she was fit for it. On a revisit I found her still there, neither
dismissed nor re-examined. It would have been easy for the firm to
have replaced her ten times over from the immediate vicinity of the
factory, so that there was no reason for the disregard of the
instructions except carelessness and indifference.”[169]
As time went on, and especially after the certifying surgeons had the
power given by the Factory Act of 1901 to attach conditions to
certificates of fitness for individual girls and boys, interest grew
among employers and managers in setting the young workers on to more
suitable work under more favourable circumstances. They realised the
possibilities for good in the examination as they had not done under the
past more formal methods. In cases where young persons were employed in
very dusty processes—bronzing in printing factories, shaking up and
cleaning feathers in quilt and cushion works—those who complained of ill
effects were found to be “mouth-breathers” on account of nasal
obstruction, and by arrangement with the occupiers these were removed to
non-dusty processes.[170] In potteries where a good many prosecutions
had to be taken for neglect to obtain certificates of fitness—so
necessary for the heavy work to be done there by young workers—good
effects were particularly seen in new potteries. At one, notices were
distributed by the occupier at intervals to all the sub-employers in the
different departments[171] reminding them of their duty immediately to
report the engagement of workers under eighteen; in another a clerk was
set in official charge of the general register and health register with
the duty of regularly ascertaining whether the prescribed examination
had been carefully carried out. Enquiries were systematically made into
reasons for and results of rejection, and an extensive report on such
activities may be read in the Annual Report for 1905. Official visits to
medical officers of health as well as conferences with certifying
surgeons in the special question of rejections for uncleanliness led to
development of co-operation between the different authorities. By 1913
co-operation with education authorities and the juvenile labour exchange
was added. Great advance in the care of children was then brought about
by co-operation between the school medical officer and the certifying
surgeon. When a child, known to have a physical defect or weakness, goes
from school to the factory, the certifying surgeon is notified, and he
subjects the child to a searching examination.
Careful investigation in earlier years of the certificates of school
attendance of half-timers showed the attendance to be good. The
possibility of securing a labour certificate at thirteen years of age
for full-time employment had a good deal to do with this in places where
the certificate was granted on a high standard of attendance. This
meant, said Miss Paterson:
“Hard work at school in the years before the child is twelve years of
age ... and between school work and factory work the Lancashire full-
timer is often pitifully small, thin, and nervous. In a Scotch cotton
mill I noticed a little girl, twelve years old, exempted from day
school on condition of attending a night school, and working full time
in the mill on the ground that her work was not employment within the
Act. She had been examined by the certifying surgeon and passed for
‘messages only, not to work in the mill,’ and carrying messages
upstairs and downstairs from one department to another was her work
from 6 a.m. till 6 p.m. Her home was not far from the mill, but the
night school which she attended from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. was a mile from
her home, and altogether her day’s work was one that few people double
her age would willingly undertake.”[172]
And yet, in spite of much serious, heedless overstrain of children and
of deplorable illegal employment in Great Britain in our time, Ireland,
and particularly Belfast, exceeded all other parts of the United Kingdom
in what must be described as exploitation of child labour. Economic and
political conditions there, accompanied by backwardness in education, no
doubt retarded a general improvement in public appreciation of the vital
interest of the community in conservation of the strength and care of
the natural development of the child. And it was the additional
misfortune of the Irish child that the conditions of the chief industry—
flax—in its many dusty and humid processes, inevitably contained much
that was undesirable for the physical well-being of the young growing
worker.
“Public opinion,” said Miss Martindale in 1908, “on this subject of
child labour in Ireland lags far behind that in Great Britain.[173] I
have never so vividly realised this as when I prosecuted a firm on
behalf of five little girls who had been employed full time in fairly
strenuous work. Three of them were twelve years of age, and had been
employed full time since they were nine or ten years of age. It is
impossible to describe the antagonism aroused in the whole district by
this prosecution ... and the case was dismissed on a small technical
point.... Several cases of illegal employment ... could not have
occurred except for public opinion in that district.... In a flax
scutching mill one morning I found a little girl aged twelve years
‘stricking’ flax with a rapidity and dexterity which showed
considerable practice. My enquiries met with the most bare-faced
untruths.... I was told that the child was at the mill for no other
purpose than bringing tea to the workers. On visiting the school ... I
was told that this little girl and her sister, aged ten and a half
years, worked alternate weeks at the scutching mill, and were employed
there from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on every week day, including Saturday. I
could not hear of any steps having been taken by the teacher or
managers to stop this obviously illegal employment. In another factory
I found a little girl of thirteen years working full time with a
certificate which showed clearly she was only in Standard IV., and of
the illegality of the employment the teacher must have been
aware.”[174]
It was evident from the Report of the Belfast Health Commission,
published in 1908, that very adverse circumstances affected the health
of adolescent workers in Belfast, though housing conditions and
unhygienic conditions of schoolrooms may have been answerable as much as
working conditions. Although the infant under five years of age had a
better chance of life in Belfast than in Manchester, not so the young
persons aged fifteen to twenty years; in that age-group the mortality
was found to be double that for the same age-group in Manchester.
“It needs,” said Miss Martindale, “little power of imagination to
realise the pain and wretchedness which must have preceded these
deaths, and as the death-rate is a sign of the standard of health, it
is not difficult to picture the number of children who are living on,
but who are robbed of that health which brings vigour, buoyancy, and
light-heartedness. Mrs. Dickie, the Local Government Board Inspector
of boarded-out children, who has had many years’ experience of work
amongst Irish children, has, I think, put her finger on one factor in
the cause of the high death-rate when she says of half-timers:
‘Commencing as they do just at the time when all their physical powers
are needed for the merging of childhood into adolescence, the strain
of the long day in the hot, noisy mill or factory leaves them without
the reserve of strength necessary to support growth of mind and
body.’”[175]
In a wonderful degree the publication of the reports I received from
Miss Martindale on such considerations, and on many details and aspects
of the employment of children in Ireland, arrested attention there, and
aroused true sympathy for the cause of child protection. Not only were
the reports, and her very words, widely quoted in the daily Press, but
regularly there were leading articles to drive her points home when the
Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories annually appeared. In June,
1909, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church passed the
following resolution:
“That the assembly feeling deeply the obligation for the safeguarding
of child-life, especially in manufacturing districts, recommends
ministers of this Church to study official documents bearing upon the
question of child labour, and to endeavour to arouse public opinion in
favour of enforcing the law with a view to the protection both of the
children and of the law-abiding employer.”
In the counties of Antrim and Down, out of 50,686 persons employed in
textile factories at that time, not less than 13,691 were under eighteen
years of age, and of these 4,144 were half-timers. Thus the question was
not a small one for these districts, having regard to the heavy and
debilitating atmosphere of dust or humidity, in which so much of the
work was done. Miss Martindale felt that a spinner was right when she
said, pointing to a group of half-timers, “Ah! indeed, they are hard
enough wrought.” It was not surprising that the Belfast half-timer was
undersized and delicate. A little girl aged twelve (one of many of the
same size) she had weighed in a factory in 1906. Her weight was 58
pounds, instead of the 76 pounds that might have been expected for her
age.[176]
The total number of young lives in factories and workshops under some
degree of protection by the Factory Acts in the United Kingdom in the
first decade of the twentieth century was approximately 1,099,841
persons under eighteen years of age, and of these 459,698 were under
sixteen years of age; of the latter, 37,129 were half-timers, the
majority, 19,211, being girls. The lowest age-limit of admission had
been established and duly observed without difficulty over the greater
part of the kingdom, but in Ireland we had many attempts at evasion to
contend with—generally from the side of the parents; both Miss
Martindale and her successor, Miss Slocock, frequently had to follow up
falsified certificates, and prosecution of a father was repeatedly
necessary.[177]
A great deal of valuable work was done in Lancashire and Yorkshire
textile districts by Miss Squire and her staff, and by Miss Vines in
Scottish textile districts, not only in giving effect to the actual
requirements of the law, but in watching over details of employment that
seriously strained the young worker, such as bobbin carrying up and down
stairs, weft carrying by the tenter in the weaving shed (“the tenter has
always a tired look”). Conditions affecting them in Dundee jute, hemp,
and flax factories were in many ways quite as bad as conditions in
Belfast factories.
It is impossible to give here more than this bare idea of the scope of
our activities in the matter of child labour, and I can merely refer to
the fresh care that had to be devoted to the question during the
pressure of wartime. At that time the eagerness of children to help
again led to much illegal employment before the legal age of admission,
or to full time when only half-time was permissible, to employment in
school holidays, and at all kinds of illegal hours in many miscellaneous
industries. Many prosecutions had to be taken in London, Birmingham, and
the North of England, and in Scotland. Increasing support was given by
magistrates and sheriffs in repressing this evil. In 1917, in one case
taken by Miss Vines, where very young girls had been employed for
excessive hours, and a defence was set up that the pressure of work had
led the management to overlook the youth of the workers, the sheriff
severely observed that “no one could be so busy that he could not see a
girl of thirteen was not eighteen.” In Birmingham, Miss Martindale in
the same year prosecuted nineteen firms and five parents for illegal
employment of children, and in Coventry she prosecuted a firm for
employing a child of ten years in a bakehouse. In an outstanding case in
the North-Western Division a fruit preserving company was prosecuted by
Miss Tracey for employing little girls of eight to ten years, mostly in
the intervals between school, in preparing fruit for bottling, two of
them being in poor health and absent from school. There was found to be
great and special need during the later years of the War for
watchfulness by the Inspectors against serious overloading of young
workers or their employment near dangerous machinery.[178]
We have already seen above that certain religious and charitable
institutions first came within the purview of the Factory Acts in 1907
as regards industrial work of their inmates, and the question of their
inclusion or exclusion had long been a subject of controversy—in fact,
ever since the Act of 1895 had partly regulated commercial laundries. It
is somewhat surprising, in view of the long discussions and the fear
frequently expressed by ordinary laundries of unfair competition from
the side of institutional laundries, when one learns that the total
number of working inmates of institutions under Section 5 of the Act of
1907 never exceeded round about 9,550, of whom 9,417 were engaged in
laundry work for persons outside the institution, 4,068 of these inmates
being engaged in laundry work aided by power-driven machinery. In
commercial laundries fully regulated by the Act of 1907, the last
returns to the Factory Department—published in 1911—showed that 103,635
women and girls were employed, besides 11,466 men and boys, and that
75,774 of the women and girls worked in power-driven or “factory”
laundries. When it is further remembered that even the largest
institutional laundries are relatively small compared with very many
large commercial laundries, it is evident that the question of their
competition with these laundries barely arises, and that the
administrative question of chief importance in the institutional
laundries always has been, What was the form of regulation most likely
in the special circumstances to aid in securing the well-being of the
inmates? The latter are mostly brought into the institution for
charitable aid or reform, or special training or special protection
against their own weakness, and generally they lack the self-protecting
habits of normal industrial workers. The Factory Acts were in no way
devised for controlling, nor competent to regulate, either the domestic
conditions in the lives of these inmates or their training or education.
The aim of inclusion under the Factory Act was simply to secure that,
when they were actually engaged on industrial work (for purposes outside
the institution itself, even if not by ordinary way of trade), they
might be assured of conditions of work, health, and safety, not less
favourable in their circumstances than those enforceable for a worker
employed in a factory or workshop.
It was about the year 1899 that we began, as a branch Inspectorate, to
come in touch with certain convent or religious institution industries;
first, through the complaints of the ordinary trader that they were in
an unfairly favoured position, and, secondly, through the research of
Miss Deane and Miss Squire in Ireland, into convent industries really
carried on by way of ordinary trade. Here the workers were definitely
employed under a contract of employment in lace making, knitting by hand
or machine, embroidery, shirt making, laundry work, and weaving of
flannel, tweeds, and linen. Some of these were inspected for the first
time in 1900 by Miss Squire. She and the instructions she gave under the
Act were well received by the Superiors. The successful example and high
standard set by the Rev. Mother Superior of Foxford Convent, county
Mayo, where a woollen factory with dye works had long been carried on
(with profit to the peasants of the district as well as the convent),
inclined other convents, attempting to carry on small manufactures, to
welcome the visit of a Woman Inspector. These were not places for
reformatory or protective occupation of girls and women—not so-called
penitentiaries—but real productive establishments. In no such place
previously uninspected did Miss Squire find any objection to her
official visits; a hope was, however, expressed that the Inspector might
always be a woman; she came to the conclusion that occasional friendly
inspections were all that was necessary to secure that the spirit and
intentions of the Acts would be complied with. When I had the pleasure
of visiting them myself later on, beginning with the interesting Foxford
Factory, where the nuns managed the business and supervised the work in
the worksheds, I found the same spirit, and in that particular factory
an attractive combination of successful management with picturesque
charm.
The discussions in Press and Parliament in 1900 and 1901 on the problem
of regulating the other type of religious institution workplaces, of a
reformatory or charitable character—largely for derelict women and
girls—when the Act of 1901 was passing into law, led me to enquire into
comparative methods of regulating such places in the chief industrial
countries of Europe. My enquiries of the officials of sister Factory
Departments in France, Belgium, and Germany led to my receiving warm
invitations from the Inspectorates of these countries to visit them and
see their method of administration. The invitations were accepted, and
this was altogether a happy experience; details may be read in the
Annual Reports for 1901 and 1902.[179]
It was not only the friendly, helpful reception that was gratifying, it
was the discovery that in these countries, and most completely in France
and Germany, the general hygienic and safety provisions of their
industrial laws applied to the religious, charitable, and reformatory
workplaces equally with ordinary industrial establishments, and were
enforced by the same administrative methods. In France the Inspector had
“not to enquire whether a charitable institution works for gain or the
technical instruction of its workers; it sufficed that there is manual
labour for the law to apply.” Regulation was the more necessary in that
there were no less than 1,472 religious or charitable establishments
employing 48,432 workers, of whom the majority were under eighteen years
of age. The long time, over twenty years, during which regulation of the
hygiene and safety of these institutional workplaces, including
laundries, had been carried on under the ordinary safeguards of the law,
gave me a helpful object lesson in France. Commercial laundries had,
moreover, been regulated as other factories and workshops had been, and
for the same length of time. Thus I saw in them a higher standard of
cleanliness, ventilation, and fencing of dangerous machines than had yet
been obtained under our more recent regulation of laundries in England.
In Germany, where I was received in the Grand Duchy of Baden as a
colleague, and accorded the privilege of attending a staff conference of
the Inspectorate, under the late Dr. Wörishoffer, their learned chief, I
was interested to find how strict was their protection of young workers
against risks of severe accident or dangerous machinery, and how much
less they were employed in factory work than with us.
After this experience followed our regular voluntary inspection for
several years of a considerable proportion of charitable and religious
institution workshops and factories (chiefly laundries), which had
submitted themselves to such inspection at the invitation of the Home
Office. In Ireland, where the institutional laundries were larger and
more numerous than in England, I made some personal visits in 1905 to
representative institutional laundries and other workplaces possessing
varied characteristics and aims, and began a study of similar English
institutions. A few were found to be entirely willing to receive and act
on advice from Inspectors in the carrying out of standards laid down for
commercial workplaces as to hours, sanitation, safety; others were
willing to comply in part. Objections to compliance were sometimes on
the score of expense in providing safeguards to machinery, screens, and
ironing stoves and so on; sometimes on the ground that great care in
supervision obviated need for other safeguards; sometimes that precise
limits in hours or fixed mealtimes, or affixing notices and abstracts of
the law interfered with discipline; the last-named, and the possibility
of an Inspector speaking to a worker, were the measures of protection
for the working inmates that were most frequently opposed. Explanations
tended, on the whole, to smooth away obstacles, yet in an undue
proportion of the institutions nothing was changed under “voluntary”
inspection, and in these cases, finally, the only course was to refuse
to continue the inspection. Full reports on the results of inspection on
such lines, by Miss Deane and Miss Martindale in Ireland, and by Miss
Paterson and Miss Tracey and other Inspectors in England and Scotland,
appeared in Annual Reports for 1905, 1906, and 1907. Remoteness from
ordinary life in the atmosphere of these workplaces, too strong a
tendency to place production for profit before thorough training of the
workers, and too close a dependence on laundry work alone instead of
experimenting with varied occupations—in preparation for life outside
the institution—were among the defects most frequently commented on by
the Inspectorate. Lack of understanding of elements of personal hygiene
for the worker as well as of hygiene of the workplace was widely found,
and, even after the law and compulsory inspection applied, striking
illustrations of resultant ill-health among the inmates were repeatedly
reported. At the same time illustrations of good and understanding care
(always found in some places) grew in number and greatly developed in
enlightened ideas as time went on. Some of the extraordinary risks found
in certain places—_e.g._, an unfenced power wringer fed by a feeble-
minded girl; an uncovered hydro with friction cones and driving belt
totally uncovered fed by a girl of sixteen with long, loose hair;
newcomers set to feed an unguarded calender, for the greater part
apparently without accident—tended to suggest that leisurely methods and
care in supervision did to some extent lessen risks. In an orphanage
laundry with an uncleanly wash-house and very long hours of work, little
girls were found with sore eyes, and some cases were also seen among
inmates who were domestic workers. The Sister said they had had a great
many cases lately, and that it seemed “almost as if the children
infected each other”![180] Poor feeding of inmates often came to the
knowledge of the Inspectors through uninvited communications from the
managers or Sisters, and records of accounts in printed reports of the
institutions showed a very low average expenditure per head on this
item—_e.g._, 2s. 1Od. per inmate weekly in one Scottish institution—many
inmates being young, undeveloped girls, and here the hours were 8 a.m.
to 7 p.m., with one and a half hours’ intervals for meals; in another
the report stated that the average cost of dieting superintendents and
inmates was 3s. 11d. per week, and average cost of clothing inmates £1
10s. per year. After application of the Act of 1907 to these
institutional workplaces we occasionally learned of serious outbreaks of
ill-health among working inmates, and invariably we called in the
services of the local medical officer of health, or the certifying
surgeon, or both—improvements following. In one case escape of sewer gas
into the house; in another defective management of working conditions,
with dreary routine and absence of play or outdoor exercise for growing
girls; in yet another pressure for output, with long hours of work, was
found to be the immediate cause of cases of illness occurring. In very
many institutions, however, the inmates are of poor constitution to
begin with, and not equal to standard industrial hours until after some
care for the building up of their health. At first we had many places to
inspect where inmates were more or less feeble-minded, but gradually
these have passed under care of the Board of Control for the Mentally
Deficient.
In 1907 the last of the “voluntary” inspections were specially welcomed
by managers, who increasingly applied for advice and information. In
1908 compulsory inspection was generally cordially welcomed and
Inspectors were often pressed to return. Conferences on aims and method
of conducting the institutions increased among associations of managers.
Educational and character-forming occupations were in a few places added
to laundry work or substituted for it, and attempts were here and there
made to try and suit the special needs of individuals. For example, a
woman who made nothing of laundry work or needlework took whole-
heartedly to the printing of programmes and notices. One began to see
hope of the passing of the listless, lifeless condition of many inmate
workers, and of the coming of something of the vital, “alive,” and
frequently graceful movements of the “factory girl.” It is not
impossible even with laundry work as the chief occupation of the
institutional workers to find happy activity among them—when the Sister
Superior or manageress is sufficiently young in spirit to develop
“hobbies” in recreation, and to encourage in the girls a sense of
responsibility. I know of one institution where the Sister Superior aims
at self-government in the best spirit of a “public school.” And here,
when charming baskets made by the laundry girls were brought out for my
inspection, they asked eagerly that I might also “see Sister’s work.”
Still, it must not be supposed that there was not very much to be done
to secure compliance with the letter and spirit of the Act of 1907
during the seven years following its coming into force.
Although desire of exceptional treatment in the matter of hours
declined, still, on the whole, the total extent of hours spent at work
is more nearly drawn out to the full permissible limits than is recently
customary in commercial workplaces. Safety of the machinery and
sanitation of the workplace were gradually secured, but it was a slow
and tedious process to develop any enlightenment as to the value of
shortened spells and hours. In a few cases there was obstinate
resistance to instructions in the requirements of the Act, and reform
was not secured until the Home Office had exercised the power of
withdrawing all privileges allowed under the Act. The last reported case
of that kind was one in 1914. Yet “in the great majority of homes under
Section 5 of 1907 there continues to be faithful observance of the
law.”[181] The War brought reverberations into these workplaces as well
as into all others. New ideas were aroused among managers by the varied
experiments in special workrooms for unemployed women, during the first
few months of the War, under Queen Mary’s Fund.[182] The great general
demand for women’s and girls’ labour altered the whole position for any
of them willing to retrieve themselves by service to the nation, and it
was interesting to learn that the numbers in the Homes markedly
declined. After the War, girl inmates began to show their new powers of
initiative by writing to the Senior Lady Inspector, thus showing the
value of abstracts and notices with names and addresses affixed in the
workplace.
In one such place a complaint was seriously justified by the
investigation that followed. Long hours of work for very young girls,
total absence of outdoor games, with poor dietary, had resulted in much
sickness. I visited the head of the Sisterhood, of which this
institution was a branch work, with the Senior Lady Inspector, and we
found her open to the reception of new ideas. A change in management
followed, with happy results. We received, some months later, direct
from the girls and their new Sister Superior, a hearty and welcome
invitation to attend their annual festivity.
CHAPTER VI
THE LIFE OF THE INSPECTOR AND ITS INFLUENCE ON LEGISLATION; EXPERIENCES
IN COURTS
“I doubt very much whether the office of Factory Inspector is one
suitable for women.... It is seldom necessary to put a single question
to a female.... Possibly some details, here and there, might be
superintended by a female Inspector, but looking at what is required
at the hands of an Inspector, I fail to see advantages likely to arise
from her ministrations in a factory ... so opposite to the sphere of
her good work in the hospital, the school, or the home.”—_Chief
Inspector of Factories_, October 31, 1879.[183]
“The men’s and women’s sides of the Inspectorate ... will be
amalgamated into a single organisation. Women Inspectors will be
regarded as eligible for all posts. While the complete fusion, which
is the ultimate aim, can only be brought about gradually, the main
principles will be put into effect from the commencement.”—_Chief
Inspector of Factories_, June 8, 1921.[184]
While we await the development of the later of these two extremes in
official views on the possibilities of employment of Women Factory
Inspectors, there is ample material in the intervening Annual Reports of
the Chief Inspector, and in comments and conclusions in Parliamentary
Debates upon them, for grasping the realities in the life and activity
of the Inspectors.
In the reports it is clear that they were engaged all the time on work
that really mattered in its immediate effect on the life and conditions
of women as workers in the factory and workshop, as outworkers, as
mothers, and as industrial inmates of charitable institutions; and that
the Inspectors brought new light, health, and safety into working
conditions for adolescent girls and children. Their work was not formal,
nor simply a question of detail, but constructive for the nation in the
things that most needed new thought and perception. The fact that they
never instructed occupiers of factories about “fencing” of dangerous
machinery[185] that was operated solely by men did not lighten their
work. It simply set them free to concentrate on immense human problems
needing their special attention. Women workers had also to be drawn to
confide in the Inspectorate, and to co-operate intelligently in
transforming factory conditions from within. Growth of the spirit of
self-help in the women was noticeable in details of Annual Reports from
1896. I was able expressly to point to its growth in 1901 and onwards.
As regards “a great many provisions” in the Factory Act of 1895, Mr.
Asquith, speaking in the House of Commons on July 31, 1896, said he was
“quite satisfied from recent experience, that these provisions could not
be satisfactorily enforced except by female inspection.” And Sir Matthew
White Ridley, then Home Secretary in succession to Mr. Asquith, replied
that “much good had been done in the interest of female workers of the
country by the appointment of these Lady Inspectors.”
In 1904 Mr. Asquith, in pressing on another Home Secretary, Mr. Akers-
Douglas, the need of really sufficient additions to the number of Women
Inspectors (then numbering twelve), did so for the reason “that the
girls and women of the country might be more efficiently protected.”
This had followed many annually repeated pleas in the House by various
members, foremost Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. H. J. Tennant, for more
liberal development of the work of the Women Inspectorate, and
suggestions were made for placing them in district charge in centres of
many women’s industries—_e.g._, in potteries, in Ireland—and
commendation was expressed of an experiment of this kind in the West
London Special District.
Mr. Theodore Taylor, speaking as a factory owner in the debate on Home
Office Estimates on August 4, 1904, desired “to acknowledge the very
great debt of gratitude which employers generally were under to the
Women Inspectors. There were very many abuses which employers were not
aware of until they were brought to light by the Women Inspectors ... he
joined in the strong request that the number should be largely
increased ... the adoption of this course would tend to the efficiency
of factory labour.” Mr. John Burns held that “their work had to do with
matters which no average man could understand,” echoing a point made in
earlier debates by Mr. Asquith, that the Women Inspectors could “bring
themselves into close contact with the workers and obtain from them with
greater spontaneity actual facts of the real duties of their lives and
work,” and that this freedom of communication resulted in much better
administration of the law.[186] Mr. Akers-Douglas, replying in 1904 to
the demand for increase in the Women’s Branch of the Inspectorate, “had
been very much struck by the unanimous opinion expressed that day,” as
he had been also, he said, by “reading the very valuable report” of that
year on the work of the Women Inspectors.
Members of Parliament, indeed, showed throughout that they were entirely
convinced that efficiency and economy followed on the spontaneous
character of the work of the Women Inspectors’ Branch, and that the
confidence reposed in them by the workers, for whose aid they were
appointed, was appreciated. As Mr. McKenna said on March 8, 1898: “We
know the very high favour with which they are looked upon by the working
classes.” The only definite exception that I can find to this general
commendation is in a complaint by Mr. Jesse Collings on June 29, 1903,
that they went beyond their province of seeing that the laws were obeyed
by doing “missionary work.” This complaint seems to refer to their
steady endeavours to encourage employers to go beyond the law in
promotion of welfare conditions—an aim which came into wider public
consideration during the Great War.
There are many passages in the Debates to show that it was not only the
direct work of applying the Acts and Orders, but even more the faculty
of acting both as an intelligence branch and as a missionary arm of the
Department that was valued by the country in the work of the Women
Inspectorate. Not only was the extension of localised administration, by
women for women, in great centres of women’s industry urged over and
over again from 1899 onwards; Sir Charles Dilke also led many members,
particularly in 1906, in emphasising the value of their special
enquiries and reports on such questions as employment of women after
childbirth; the need of after-care of young persons rejected for
physical unfitness in the factory and thereupon employed in less
regulated occupations and workshops; industrial disease and poisoning
among women and girls; observance of special regulations peculiarly
affecting women and girls; fines and deductions from wages; sanitary
arrangements; and other matters in which the needs of women workers
necessarily vary from those of men. “The great organised trades,” he
said, “are to some extent able to protect themselves, but women workers
depend,” to a great extent, on legislation and enforcement of the law,
and “on the Women Inspectors especially falls the duty of enforcing the
law,” “where the inspection is most necessary.”
In July, 1908, Mr. Herbert Gladstone, speaking as Home Secretary, and
alluding to a 40 per cent. increase in numbers of the Women’s Branch
(which brought them to eighteen), said: “The time has come when the
demands of the country for more Lady Inspectors cannot be resisted,” and
he declared that the “increase would be gradual in the future,” and that
there would be “no change in the character of the excellent work” done
by them. At this figure, eighteen, the numbers remained for several
years. Then in 1911 we find Lord Henry Cavendish Bentinck asking for
more, and expressing disappointment in finding that the numbers “remain
the same”; in 1912 he and Mr. Alfred Lyttelton referred again to the
subject, and the former pointed to the valuable concentrated “experiment
in the way of fencing machinery” that was going on in laundries in the
special West London district, under a Woman Inspector, with resultant
decline in number of accidents. He referred also appreciatively to their
work throughout the country under the Truck Act.
The lively interest that members took in reading the published reports
of the Women’s Branch, with their “vivid and humane representation of
the facts of our factory system,” was emphasised by Mr. Morrell and Mr.
Ramsay Macdonald in July, 1913, and Mr. Hills and Lord Henry Cavendish
Bentinck returned to the old charge, that, for the sides of the work
affecting women and young workers, efficient administration could be
secured only by setting the Women Inspectorate to do it. “It is quite
true that it is the duty of the male Inspectors as well as of the female
Inspectors to look after those women and children,” but for these Mr.
Morrell urged “the work cannot be effectively done except by women.”
This, then, was the Parliamentary mirror of the toils and adventures of
the Women Inspectorate. There is, however, a word to be said on an
aspect that appears to be neglected. Undoubtedly it was helpful to the
Women Inspectors on the one side to know, during so many years of
difficult and heavy work, that Parliament grasped the extent of their
task and the nature of the work that they were reaching out to achieve
in response to the appeal made to them by the industrial womanhood of
the nation. Yet, on another larger side, there was much pain also in the
feeling that this repeated emphasis tended to obscure any general
perception of the highly urgent need that required strong support, for
Men Inspectors in dealing with preventable accident and injury, and far
too rough and unhygienic conditions for the manhood of industry, in
places where women were little employed or not employed at all.
As far back as 1898 my own belief was that effective reorganisation of
staff involved not only concentration of experienced Women Inspectors on
the main conditions affecting women workers, but, even more, a
lightening of the cares of Men Inspectors on this side to allow of their
greater concentration on prevention of accidents and on very dangerous
trades where women may not enter as workers. In 1920 accidents affecting
male workers numbered 124,580, of which 1,363 were fatal, as compared
with 14,122 affecting female workers, of which 41 were fatal.[187]
Examples of the great accident producing industries are extraction and
conversion of metals, shipbuilding, docks, construction of buildings,
foundries, locomotive, and other large engineering works. In Parliament
the conclusion has invariably been reached that, in health and safety
problems for women and girl workers, Women Inspectors are primâ faciê
the more competent. Is it not in the great safety problems for men and
boys that a field of specialisation lies for Men Inspectors of a nature
as absorbing as that which enthralled the Women Inspectorate during the
last twenty-five years? The fusion of the men’s and women’s sides of the
Inspectorate, while avoiding some old problems of administration, raises
up new ones, not less large. A solution appears clearly within reach,
but discussion of it is outside the scope of this survey.
On neither side—men’s safety problems nor women’s health problems—is
skilled enquiry by the Inspectorate or experimental development of
regulation finished. The difference of potential or actual maternity
alone (without consideration of claims on girls and women as the
homemakers of the nation), according to Dr. Janet Campbell in her
memorandum to the War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry,[188]
absolutely prevents equal competition of women with men in industry. She
lays stress on the need of further investigation into the physical
effects of employment in industry upon adolescent girls as well as adult
women, and this view supports the considerable enquiry made in the past
by Women Inspectors into heavy work done by girls. The persistent call
of Women Inspectors during many years for welfare conditions saw both
its justification and its fruit in the industrial warwork of women. The
extensive employment by the Ministry of Munitions of Women Dilution
Officers, to strengthen and promote employment of women dilutees in
engineering trades, ran also in harmony with the idea of specialisation
rather than fusion of function. Dr. Josefa Joteyko, in her “Science of
Labour,”[189] deals with experiments she had made showing the differing
modes of expenditure of energy in industry by man and woman. She says:
“Each represents a distinct function,” although each form of energy is
equally necessary to industry for its own purposes. While her
experiments established endurance as a characteristic in the feminine
sex requiring a slow and gradual expenditure of energy to avoid fatigue,
muscular force or strength with a power to act instantaneously under a
stimulating impulse are shown to be characteristic of the masculine sex,
and to be accompanied by ability to recover rapidly from fatigue. “Most
careful selection of working women with regard to their muscular
powers,” she considers, is necessary for successful industrial labour.
Whatever the issue of these various considerations, Parliamentary and
medical, on women’s work, it is well for the general community to
understand the ways in which the Women Factory Inspectors actually
worked during the past quarter of a century. During this period, says a
writer in the _Women’s Industrial News_ of January, 1915, the “direct
influence” of Women Inspectors on “enactments affecting women and young
people is very great, and they also helped to raise the standard of
legal regulation in the British Isles by study of foreign industrial
legislation.”[190] She traced out the questions in which their work had
affected development of the Acts and Orders from 1895 to 1907, and
mentioned among others the following: overcrowding, insufficient or
unsuitable means of heating workrooms, defective and unsuitable sanitary
accommodation for women, dangers from locked doors in fire or panic,
excessive overtime, need of power to qualify certificates of fitness for
young workers by specification of the class of work to be done,
insufficient general ventilation, need of inspection of institutional
laundries, regulation of fines and deductions, etc. “The social progress
of recent years,” she said, “has been the result of an unprecedented
attention to matters of detail. Investigation and administration have
begun to go hand in hand, and the scientific spirit which has been so
long in coming to its own in matters social may now be said to have
arrived ... the great advance which the Women Inspectors have been able
to bring about in factory legislation has been largely due to the
sympathetic insight which has made them virtually representative of the
people.”[191]
During the whole period 1893–1921 these Inspectors were, by official
instructions, directed especially to enquire, report, and take action in
behalf of women and girls; a task to which they addressed themselves
with hearty loyalty and intense interest.[192] They had Inspectors’ full
powers of action, and worked under their own women officers from 1896 to
1921. It was from 1902 onwards that they directly instructed occupiers
on fencing and prevention of accidents in the clothing and laundry
industries, of which they had made special study. Earlier in the same
year full authority was entrusted to me, as head of the branch, for the
sanctioning of their prosecutions, a power hitherto exercised subject to
approval by the Chief Inspector. Except for slight variations in the
early stages, co-ordination of their special work with the general work
of the male District Inspectors followed a steadfast prescribed course
from 1898 to 1921.
The very boundaries set to the work of the women officers led, as things
were, to what may be called their “higher education” in the nature of
the representative and judicial administration of their country. The
thorough general knowledge they acquired, all over the British Isles, of
conditions in every productive or manufacturing industry employing women
and girls, sprang also from their concentration as a branch on this
aspect of industrial employment. They made close acquaintance with local
as well as central methods of administration by daily dealings with
health and education authorities and their officers, as well as with
magistrates, sheriffs, and their clerks. They had to act for themselves—
most fortunately, for “power to do comes of doing”—in courts of summary
jurisdiction, learning procedure and something of the “law of evidence”
as they went along, and gaining an understanding of the details and
principles of the Truck Acts and Factory Acts, that could only be
acquired by personally testing them in the courts.
Probably in nothing did we owe so much to the first tentative efforts of
Miss May Abraham and Miss Mary Paterson as in their adventurous
readiness from the outset to try their powers in police and sheriff
court proceedings. I may confess that my own first feelings were chiefly
of consternation on learning that I had, a few weeks after entering the
Department, personally to prosecute an occupier for illegal employment
of girls—never having previously entered a police court. I suggested to
the District Inspector that he might conduct the first one, just “to
show how it was done,” but fortunately and wisely he declined. It was
not very long before I found a new interest in methods of
administration, through my discovery of a clause in the Factory Act
under which I might ask the magistrates to “make an order in addition to
imposing a penalty on an occupier for failure to keep his factory in
conformity with the Act”[193]—the magistrates actually complying with
the request, on condition that the terms of the order were drawn up by
the local medical officer of health and myself. This discovery was
indeed crowned when, in a great mill employing about a thousand workers,
it resulted in the closing of ancient and insanitary conveniences
pouring effluvia into heated spinning rooms, to the erection of passable
temporary sanitary conveniences, and, finally, to completed construction
of a modernised water-carriage system of conveniences.
It was not only in courts of summary jurisdiction that our education was
carried on. Between 1894 and 1916 we had sixteen appeals on points of
law to the High Courts of England, Scotland, and Ireland issuing from
cases taken by Women Inspectors in the Courts of first instance. Through
these we learned something about interpretation and the bearing of
“decided cases,” as well as the thoroughness with which trained lawyers
prepared a case; we also came in contact with legal advisers, law
officers, Queen’s and King’s Counsel, Treasury solicitors, Procurators
Fiscal, Sessional Crown solicitors, and so forth. Appeals to Quarter
Sessions on matters of fact occasionally gave us further enlightenment,
and, after a while, subpœnas served on Inspectors to give evidence in
civil claims of workers against their employers opened up for us new
chapters in the law of the land.
Without warning an Inspector would find herself when in a police court
arguing her case not merely with an experienced solicitor acting for the
defendant, but sometimes with a well known Q.C. (or K.C.). Our armour on
such occasions was a thorough acquaintance with the facts and
circumstances, and with the scope of the Acts which we were trying to
enforce. Much of the professional point of view and technique had
rapidly to be caught up not only on these occasions, but also during the
hazards of passing cases over to the Treasury, or to the Sessional Crown
solicitor in preparation for an appeal. The range of subjects that we
sent up was sufficient to introduce us to not a little of the lighter
and more humorous sides of legal proceedings, as well as to the tedium
of delays. In our record year for participation in appeals on points of
law—the year 1901, when Miss Squire was concerned in three appeals and
Miss Deane in one—there was some entertainment in spite of more serious
elements. Three of these appeals seem to deserve rescue from oblivion
for other than purely legal reasons. In _Deane_ v. _Hulbert Beach_ we
learned that the section (of which we had hoped much in the way of
remedy for workrooms either cruelly cold or stuffy because unprovided
with any proper heating apparatus), providing that “adequate measures
shall be taken for securing and maintaining a reasonable temperature in
each room in which any person is employed,” secured nothing whatever but
a reasonable altitude of mercury in the thermometer, however improper
the “measures.” In this instance these measures were described in the
Court of Appeal by counsel as “stuffing the room with a number of women,
heating with gas jets, stuffing up chimneys, and so on.” He argued,
first, that the “legislature must have meant that it shall be reasonable
having regard to the object in view—namely, the health of the person
employed,” but when asked by one of the Judges, “When you say ‘it,’ what
do you mean by ‘it’?” his reply was, “The warmth or temperature.” A
moment or two later he admitted, “It is a slip in the Act,” and the
Judge replied, “They ought to have used the word ‘ventilation’—adequate
ventilation.” On which counsel remarked, “Yes, that is the short point.
It has been brought up with a view to amending the Act this
session.”[194] In _Fullers, Ltd._ v. _Squire_ there was an appeal by a
defendant employer against a conviction and penalty for employing young
women through the night, on Saturday afternoons, and on Sundays in
packing and decorating wicker hampers and ornamental boxes, and filling
them with bonbons and sweetmeats in fancy patterns, tying up with bows
of ribbon and the like. The argument for appeal was, substantially, that
the work was incidental to sale, not production, and that the place was
a shop, not a workshop. No legal argument was verbally attempted by
counsel for the respondent (the same counsel as in the previous case),
but sample boxes, as packed and decorated with bright ribbon bows by the
young women, were shown to the Judges and made a fine splash of colour
in court. The appeal was dismissed, the Judges declining to interfere
with the discretion of the magistrate in deciding the individual case on
the facts before him. In _Squire_ v. _Bayer & Co._ there was, from an
Inspectors’ point of view, more tragedy than entertainment in the
decision, but the whole case is a very good measure of the distance that
has been travelled in our industrial and social standards since the year
1901. A case had been brought before the magistrates in order to test
the legality, under the Truck Act, of a rule posted up in the
defendant’s factory, that “all workers shall observe good order and
decorum while in the factory, and shall not do anything which may
interfere with the proper and orderly conduct of the business thereof,
or of any department thereof ... a fine of 6d. (or less at the
discretion of the manager) shall be paid by each worker who shall be
guilty of any infringement of this rule.” Under this rule numerous fines
had been imposed upon young girls for speaking, laughing, sneezing,
etc., and they could not know beforehand what “acts or omissions” on
their part would render them liable. The intention of the Act had
apparently been to secure such knowledge to the workers before they were
liable to a fine. The Inspector selected for her test case two girls
who, among others, had been fined for amusing themselves in the dinner
hour by singing and dancing to a small harp in the workroom where they
were allowed to remain, no mealroom being provided on the premises. The
High Court held that the case was not free from difficulty, but that
they could not say that the justices had come to a wrong conclusion in
finding that the fines were imposed under a lawful contract. “It would
be going too far to say that the language prescribing a fine for breach
of good order and decorum is necessarily too general.” The appeal was
dismissed. In these later days, since the War, the girls would not only
have a legal claim to take home their minimum wage clear of all
deductions, but employers very often think it natural and proper to
provide a messroom, and sometimes even a recreation room and a piano;
dancing in the dinner hour is occasionally not only encouraged, but
teaching also given at the employer’s expense.
In the year 1900 a case was decided in the High Court (_Tracey_ v.
_Pretty_) which brought us an experience extending over nearly two
years, that can have fallen to but few, if any, other litigants. It
arose in our endeavour to test the powers of the Factory Department to
act in default of a sanitary authority for securing conformity to some
standard of sufficiency and suitability in the provision of sanitary
conveniences. The case had been heard three times, first by two Judges
who differed, then by three Judges, one being the Lord Chief Justice,
Lord Russell of Killowen, who reserved judgment, but died before giving
the decision. It was heard for the third time by his successor, Lord
Alverstone, and the decision defined for the first time what was meant
by the “proceedings” open in England and Wales (outside London) to an
Inspector whose duty it was to act in default of the local authority.
The Inspector assumed all the powers of the authority, acting on the
advice of their surveyor, and could serve a notice under the Public
Health Acts on the occupier of the factory, the magistrate having no
authority or duty except to enquire whether the notice was properly
served and, if so, to convict. Appeal on the reasonableness of the
notice could be made to Quarter Sessions.[195]
In 1901, our interest having been thoroughly aroused as to the
possibility of increasing capacity for the legal side of the work and of
improving methods in conducting prosecutions, an invitation was given by
the Women Inspectors, through Mrs. H. J. Tennant, to Mr. R. B. Haldane,
K.C., M.P., since Lord Haldane, to address us on the “Conduct of Cases
under the Factory Acts.” To this he made a generous response, and both
Men and Women Inspectors had the great advantage of listening to a
distinguished advocate on the subject, at a gathering at Mrs. Tennant’s
house on April 18, 1901. Starting from the standpoint, familiar to a
Factory Inspector, that the Crown does not fight a case unless it
believes itself in the right, nor until satisfied of the truth of the
matter in question, he gave new meaning to some of our experience in
preparing and prosecuting a case, and need of readiness to meet
unforeseen contingencies; he also gave us new points for handling
evidence and witnesses. We were cheered by the stress he laid on “the
assurance, which is a very real one, that every case you lose brings
with it fresh experience, perhaps more than the case you gain,” and that
it is “only continual practice and dogged perseverance that makes people
grow in this as in other respects.” This same assurance was given me
personally by my own early experience, but yet more by watching the
growth in power, in this field, of colleagues working under my
direction. Of one of them I had the gratification of once reading the
opinion of a lawyer well qualified to judge, who was in court at the
time she was conducting a difficult Truck case, that it “could not have
been better done.” Sometimes words of praise for prosecuting Inspectors
would appear in a local paper. A single instance may suffice; in 1905,
when a presiding magistrate was reported to have said of two Women
Inspectors, concerned in a lively case of obstruction (of the Inspector)
and illegal employment (of women) before him, that “His Majesty was to
be congratulated on the possession of two Inspectors who did their duty
so conscientiously and well.” The one, he said, had “very ably and
properly conducted her own case”; the other (who had pursued retreating
workers in the factory down a trap-door into a dark cellar) “seemed to
have behaved with great pluck and activity.”
On this side of their work, in patience, resourcefulness, and
persistence, and in the high percentage of success in results, the
record does appear somewhat remarkable. Taking only the years from 1898
to 1914, the Women Inspectors brought 4,962 cases into court against
1,974 occupiers, and secured convictions in 4,715 cases. And the average
penalty imposed by magistrates rose, on the whole. The years of greatest
activity in the courts were between 1901 and 1911. Though many
interesting cases came in earlier and in later years, the tendency
increased, after 1911, to place more reliance on conference with or
persuasion of occupiers. The nature of infringements of the law has
largely appeared in preceding chapters, and the proportion of cases was
(as in complaints): first, illegal employment; secondly, defects in
sanitation and infraction of health regulations; thirdly, irregularity
in payment of wages.
It seems very natural that a high proportion of our younger Women
Inspectors have been impelled to read for the Bar in 1920–21 so soon as
such a step was open to them. Long after some of them have been called
to and are successfully practising at the Bar, it may touch them to read
of early experiences of Women Factory Inspectors during the arduous
battles they fought on behalf of many extremely poor and hard-driven
women workers. The life they led can only be given by fragments.
Here is a little extract from a diary, the flotsam of time:
“_Midnight ... December 31_ ... we are at L——, cold, miserable. Came
here to see ... Sessional Crown Solicitor about case to be stated _re_
order of D—— magistrates in the case of X——.
“_January 1._—We listened to the clock striking the new year while
making copies of draft-stated case which we had drawn up ourselves and
which ... Sessional Crown Solicitor had approved (we are very proud of
this draft). At 8.30 a.m. we started in a wagonette with two horses,
one of which had no shoe, with snow on the ground.... Arrived D—— 6.30
p.m., found Sessional Crown Solicitor and two resident magistrates,
had long conference, read them our stated case, which they adopted _in
toto_.
“_January 2._—Conference all day long and attendance in court, when J.
P. signed stated case with exception of.... Sat up till 2 a.m. copying
stated case ready for service next day. Atmosphere very damp, also
cold.... Slept under nine thicknesses of blankets and two
counterpanes.
“_January 3._—All day trying to get stated case signed by outstanding
magistrate, who flatly refused, saying, ‘I know X—— was in the wrong,
but it’s making too much of it to take the case to Dublin.’
“_January 4._—At 4 a.m. we started for our fifteen-mile drive to
nearest railway-station, bright starlight, lovely sunrise, nearly
choked with clothing and hot bottles, and sat nursing our best hats on
our knees.”
For “peripatetic” Inspectors the difficulty was a real one; the fitting
in of visits of special enquiry, general routine visits of inspection,
visits on extremely varied kinds of complaints, with the successful
prosecution of prolonged legal activities in widely scattered places.
Yet I know of no case where action failed through omission by an
Inspector to serve a notice or complete any legal formality or be at the
necessary spot at the prescribed time. There was a flame burning within
that seemed to consume obstacles by the way, and rendered innocuous even
very adverse climatic and other conditions. Long cross-country drives in
Ireland (undertaken at times simply to carry out a formal act) would
sometimes last all day in an open car in pouring rain, or a day in a
tiny, stuffy police court might have to be preceded by a drive beginning
before daylight on a stormy winter morning to fetch intimidated
witnesses for the case. In Lancashire a start might have to be made at
4.30 a.m. from a hotel (with the aid of knocking-up by the night
porter), to reach a distant country mill, unobserved, by a new route, in
order to detect time-cribbing before 6 a.m. Tussles with manageresses to
obtain the luxury of clean sheets on the hotel beds, and struggles to
secure amendments in conditions of uncleanliness (about which “Lord X——
Y——, here last week, had not complained”), were much more against the
grain. Yet all seemed small in comparison with such conclusions as that
of the _X—— Sentinel_ that the Lady Factory Inspector had “emerged
triumphant” from her case; that the “Truck Act has a living force for
the protection of a worker as far away as Altnagapple”; and that “the
publicity given to these prosecutions is likely to have a beneficial
effect throughout the county.” Or, again, the comments of the _Daily C——
_ on the prosecution of a firm employing a number of young girls in
processes scheduled as “dangerous” was enlivening. A certain town which
was “famous for its magistrates in Shakespeare’s time yesterday let off
notable offenders lightly. For employing four young girls without the
certificate of the doctor which the law requires a fine of 10s. in each
case was enforced—this being positively the first offence of the sort;
and for an incredibly mean breach of the Truck Act, by means of which a
girl had her wages stopped for two whole years to pay her father’s rent,
the firm had to pay three guineas. Grinding the faces of the poor is
cheap down in ——, and but for the Woman Inspector who found out what was
going on it would cost nothing at all.”
Consolation sometimes came swiftly to the Inspector on a refusal of
magistrates to convict in a closely contested case for, for instance,
heavy deductions from the girls’ small wages, or for waste in
production. In such a case, the firm, before leaving court, offered to
meet the Inspector’s views by lowering the scale of deductions for the
future to figures that, if yielded at an earlier stage, would have
obviated the need for prosecution. Publicity in such things was ever our
most potent helper. Something of the “setting” of this case, in the
court, may be brought up from the past by means of a stray leaf of a
letter, come back to me from the colleague to whom I wrote it in 1899:
“The firm had arranged quite a dramatic scene for us—no less than
three barristers, with wigs and all. Mr. Y——, Q.C., defended, with the
help of his friend, Mr. S——, and another friend of theirs who came in
from the Assize Court to enjoy himself. All the four partners were
there, and their solicitor. It would take too long to tell the whole
story now, but ... it was worth while fighting, and we were in court
until 3 p.m. I had breakfasted at 6.30 a.m. in London, so you will
believe that I was glad when lunch-time came. The stipendiary and the
magistrate’s clerk listened with the greatest interest to Miss
Squire’s clear exposition ... but, alas! our witnesses were not nearly
good enough. One of them was like wax in the hands of Mr. Y——, who, as
one of the sergeants of the court confided to me, ‘was not one of your
bullying sort, but quite gentlemanly.’ The stipendiary could not make
up his mind, however, and is going to think it over and give his
decision on Tuesday.”
His decision then was to dismiss the case on the evidence before him,
but not as a precedent to govern other cases. The deductions had been so
large, in relation to the wages of the girls, that they could only be
levied by small weekly instalments, extending over months.[196]
Two Inspectors in the same year had an almost incredible series of
experiences in Donegal (details of which can be seen in the Blue-books)
when trying to limit very long hours of employment of women in
“kippering” processes on an island, and to secure payment in coin for
outworkers on the mainland engaged in knitting. A study of legal
procedure was involved that proved enlightening to the Inspectors, while
one of them most deeply engaged in the latter of these cases lived for
the most part practically under police protection. She was “much cheered
by the sympathy and gratitude of the peasants,” on whose behalf she
doggedly prosecuted the case against local agents giving out the work.
In the “kippering” case there were two hearings. At the first, there was
equal division of the magistrates, ending in its being “dismissed
without prejudice.” At the second, there were five magistrates, and the
case was dismissed by a majority of three on the ground of exemption of
the processes from the Act. The hearing was largely “occupied by the
elaborate speech of the solicitor for the defence.... The climax of his
oration was reached when he appealed to the magistrates not to allow”
the Inspector “to hie herself back to the Home Office bedecked with the
plumes of victory.” The case which was stated for appeal “never reached
a hearing, owing to a failure to observe a legal requirement” on the
part of the legal agent, to whom it was entrusted when it passed out of
the hands of the Inspectors.[197]
It would require a separate book of some size to tell of many more of
our memorable experiences in the courts, and of the wonderful, varied
play of human circumstances and character there. It may be, as one of
the Women Inspectors once observed to me, the most difficult thing in
the world to tell—or to secure the telling of—“the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth.” Yet the first business in a Court of
Justice, however summary, is to secure the presentation or unfolding of
truth, and truth being always near the mainspring of life, this is
perhaps the reason why so much entertainment, interest, and strange
attractiveness is to be found there. Possibly we had far too many cases
in which the size of penalty for serious contraventions seemed not at
all deterrent. And yet all the time a process was going on—of which we
saw glimpses now and again—in the recognition by employers of the thing
that really mattered, their moral, as distinct from their legal,
responsibility in matters affecting health and well-being of the workers
in the factories and workshops. And memory lingers on a case in which
deterrent penalties were obtained in circumstances where every interest
of the locality appeared to be against an impartial hearing:
“The employment of the women from 8.30 a.m. of one day until 5 a.m. on
the next was on a mourning order for the magistrate’s clerk. The
magistrate, before whom the informations were brought, at first
refused to sign them, and only did so on the recommendation of the
magistrate’s clerk. The active partner in the business is a
magistrate. The Mayor (in the chair) is the other workshop employer,
who was cautioned for illegal employment of a child. At the hearing of
the case a strong opinion was expressed by some of the Bench that the
offence was merely technical, and that the Factory Acts were hardly
intended to apply to such country towns. Under these circumstances ...
all concerned are to be congratulated ... on the fact that sufficient
penalties were imposed to mark the offence as more than merely
technical.”[198]
In this chapter I have, so far, mainly considered the side of the
Inspectors’ work that followed from the need of enforcing observance of
the standards in the Acts, a need which was greatest in the earlier
years. Routine daily inspection of factories and workshops at all times
took a large place and increasingly so, until it was far the largest
part of the life of the Woman Inspector. It was, of course, vital that
she should visit as many as possible of the tens of thousands of places
where female workers were employed, to give both employers and workers
all that can be given and that they desired from such routine
inspection. It has already been seen how new light was thrown on many
questions of health, safety, and welfare, how fresh attention was
aroused to the importance of many sections in the various Acts, and how
the Women Inspectors, by special concentration of attention on these in
the workplace, amassed fresh material for advance in legislation and
administration. In an ordinary year, let us take 1913, they would
effectively inspect between 6,000 and 7,000 factories, between 3,000 and
4,000 workshops, visit many outworkers, factory workers at their homes,
besides hospitals, local authorities, and the courts. They would
investigate many reported cases of industrial poisoning, between 600 and
700 accidents to women and girls in laundries and wearing apparel
industries. Contravention notices to occupiers would number 9,000 or
more; prosecutions in 1913 numbered 373 against 142 occupiers. It is
evident that the direct action of the Woman Inspector stretched far
beyond the investigation of specific complaints (of which 2,014 were
received in 1913), or the following up of contraventions serious enough
for prosecution.
Seeing that over 10,000 workplaces could be inspected by the women
officers in the year, and that in each one the name and address of the
local Senior Lady Inspector was affixed on the abstract of the Acts, a
great deal was gradually done to give the women workers that access to a
Woman Inspector that they so earnestly desire. Much more than is
generally realised was added by the fact that these officers of the
Department systematically sent a letter of advice, instruction, or
caution—as the case required—to the occupier after an inspection, and
that this had incomparably more attention from him than a merely formal
notice of contravention ever had. A large part of the effect of an
inspection is missed when a necessary instruction is given on a form
instead of in a written letter. The latter not only secured, for
example, better fencing and better ventilation, heating, and welfare,
but it also stimulated reflection and aroused a new sympathy for the
aims and objects of the Acts which bore sometimes surprising fruit.
Replies of thanks from the employers asking for more help came in
increasing numbers, and it was very pleasing during the war period to be
told how heads of firms sometimes specially appreciated visits from
married Women Inspectors, who were employed at that time by the
Department in a temporary capacity. The influx, then, of many women
employees, as dilutees or otherwise, into many factories, which had
never previously employed a woman or girl in process work, awakened a
good many employers to the special problems of supervision and welfare
that arise in organising joint industrial employment of men and women,
boys and girls.
As soon as the number of Women Inspectors grew beyond the small figure
necessary to cope with the appeals and complaints of the women workers
themselves, my own endeavour was to allot their services, as far as
practicable, to the various main women’s industries over the whole
country, in a scale proportioned to the numbers of girls and women
employed. When the statistics of those employed in each trade became
available, one could find the necessary clue. Textiles absorbed over 43
per cent. of the women and girls, clothing trades over 26·5 per cent.,
laundries 5·4 per cent., food preserving 4·6 per cent., warehouses,
calendering, and finishing 2·2 per cent., earthenware and china works
nearly 2 per cent. Other determining factors of course came in, such as
special risks, questions of Truck or piecework wages, excessive seasonal
overtime employment, and so on, but where these, or the women’s own
complaints, did not compel our concentrated attention, relative
allotment of routine inspection was more or less governed by the
proportional extent of women’s employment.[199]
“While we can see,” I said in 1913, “a great number and variety of
deplorable contraventions of the actual requirements and spirit of the
law and ... apparently preventible suffering and overstrain and injury
to life, limb, and health that is grievous to dwell upon (except for
action in the way of removal), we can see also most clearly signs of
improvement and the promise of much more. The promise lies in the fact
that the movement to secure better conditions is not confined to any
one class or group. The women and girls at last begin to press their
claims for a better life ... not only by increasing appeals to
Inspectors ... but also by criticism of the limitations of the law and
by fresh courage in organising and voicing their needs to the
employers. Employers are initiating reforms not only as outstanding
individuals and firms, but are beginning to do so, at last, by
associated action and effort.”[200]
Mrs. Drury (Miss Whitworth), formerly an Inspector of Factories working
under a Senior in a division, sends me the following memory sketch of a
characteristic special day—any day that had to be withdrawn from routine
work in order to cope with a variety of miscellaneous claims needing
prompt attention. It might have happened in 1912 or 1913:
“Many days were very full, all were interesting.... Let me suppose I
was first off to investigate an accident in a laundry. With the
prescribed report from employer and certifying surgeon in my hand, I
knew that a girl of fourteen had had her arm drawn in between the hot
rollers of a collar polishing machine. There was first the examination
of the machinery to see if a proper guard was provided and maintained,
then the examining of workers to find out the usual way in which the
rollers were cleaned, and whether sufficient instruction had been
given by those in authority about use of this dangerous machine; in
short, why the accident had happened and how similar ones could be
prevented. If a serious breach was found it was necessary to take
sufficient evidence in support of possible legal proceedings—a general
inspection of the whole laundry followed and notes would be carefully
made as one went along. Finally, one would see the manager and discuss
each point and instruct as necessary. A visit to the patient followed,
probably in hospital, and her story would be heard. Light was then
thrown on what it is difficult to realise without quietly seeing the
workers alone. Help as to how to set about getting compensation was
often asked for, and the worker could then be referred to the Working
Women’s Legal Advice Bureau. If there was any defect in the machine,
so that risk of accident in cleaning it was high, a visit to the
makers of the machine or their agents might be made, then or later, to
try to persuade them to do their part—an educative proceeding even if
fruit was slow in showing.
“It would by now be lunch-time, and one learnt to sometimes take the
meal in odd places: it is not to be wondered at that when ‘on leave’
an Inspector enjoys a nice comfortable meal at home and is not a lover
of picnics. The meal was usually soon over, and timed, perhaps, so as
to be at the police court at 2 p.m. to lay informations against a
firm, before the magistrate, a formal ceremony soon over. The next
thing might be a visit to a large biscuit factory to investigate a
complaint that a certain workroom was hot and unventilated. After
taking the outside temperature I remember going to the manager’s
office, handing in my official card saying I was going at once to the
factory. The representative knew his obligation, and I went straight
to the block complained of.... Before it was time to send in my report
two letters reached the Chief Inspector, one from the employer to say
I had hurried into the factory, without even waiting to announce who I
was, the other from a trade union official to say I had been quite
half an hour talking to the manager in his office, so that, of course,
the workroom was well ventilated by the time I arrived, and my visit
useless. An Inspector has all eyes on her; she may well go about her
work warily and keep her eye on the ball.
“After such a day’s work I once found a wire waiting for me at home
from my Senior, ‘Meet me Aldgate East Station midnight for overtime
inspection.’ This was thrilling, the Junior Inspector is always ready
for an expedition of that kind ... and I went to the appointed spot.
We then walked to a tailor’s house in a street full of these
workshops, having a borrowed lamp.... I went to the basement with my
lamp, and my Senior went upstairs to an empty dark workroom, then we
met together in the sitting-room, where there was a mass of unfinished
coats and trousers evidently thrown down in a hurry; then in the
bedroom we found, in bed, fully dressed, a little girl of fourteen I
had seen before.... Proceedings followed, but these entailed more
days’ work, for the employer disappeared, and was traced with much
difficulty.... It was 2.30 a.m. before we reached home that night, but
what play could give more insight into some of the ways of man than a
good day’s inspection?”
Such days and nights of work of a Junior Woman Inspector, working in a
division as part of a well-organised staff under a Senior, show the
unity that lived on in the branch from its earliest years. The chief
difference that came with the years was in getting to closer, more
detailed, grips with the mass of work to be done. Perhaps pioneering
risks became less evident, but initiative in devising methods remained a
strong need, and variety and human interest continued equally present.
The thoroughness that persisted in investigation of complaints and in
special enquiries is roughly but picturesquely expressed by the remark
of a trade union secretary to a Woman Inspector: “I know you; you belong
to the same lot as Miss ——. I remember when she came down to our place,
long ago, like a ferret in a rat ‘ole, she were.” It was of the same
Inspector that a girl in a factory once said to the deaconess of the
parish, “I am glad when she comes to our factory, she makes me feel so
safe.”
To another Inspector, a Senior in her office, once came seventy or more
mill girls, in shawls, straight from their mill, bent on redress of a
complaint; twelve came into her room, the rest were on the stairs and
extended down into the street. It was not often so many arrived at once,
but peace of some degree in the factory generally followed on
deputations of this kind.
When it became known that my work was nearly finished, and retirement
imminent, a trade union organiser came to see me at the Home Office. It
was to bring farewell messages from the workers, and I said how very
much I was touched by such messages when I had personally seen so far
less of them in recent years in the factories than I could have wished.
“They knew you from the Women Inspectors whom they did see,” was the
instant reply.
“There is nothing you cannot ask and expect of the British worker, man
or woman—they have ability for anything,” an employer said to me in the
year following the War when I talked with him about the women’s wartime
work during his convalescence from severe illness due to overwork on
munitions in his foundry.
Ability, loyalty, and an understanding heart—what a foundation this
country has, in its workers, led by such employers, on which to build up
beautiful industries in the future!
CHAPTER VII
THE WAR AND WOMEN SUBSTITUTES; NEW LIGHT ON HOURS, LABOUR-SAVING,
FATIGUE, FOOD, AND EFFICIENCY
“Lo, strength is of the plain root virtues born:
Strength shall ye gain by service, prove in scorn,
Train by endurance, by devotion shape.
It is the offspring of the modest years.”
Those who have had patience to go with me so far, in gathering
illustrations of the conditions under which women worked in factories
down to the eve of the War, and who agree with my conclusions as to the
spirit and character of the women themselves, will perhaps follow on
with me in applying the words of George Meredith to their achievements
in the years from 1914 to the close of 1918.
Unless one turns back to the very numerous documents, official and
unofficial, relating to women’s industrial war work, it is not easy, at
the close of the year 1921, to recall the full measure of pride
expressed by the nation in what the women did for it in time of need.
Almost immediately after the Armistice all the munition workers poured
out of the factories and the substitute women followed gradually, as the
demobilised men returned to their industrial occupations. A tide of
industrial activity then rose and re-absorbed practically all available
industrial women in their own normal trades. The tide turned suddenly in
June, 1920, and increasing unemployment in 1921 has dimmed the memory of
their achievements.
Many a non-official observer, unfamiliar with the great extent and
variety of skilled manufacturing work, or with the heaviness and
roughness of much of the less skilled work, done by women and girl
industrial workers before the War, was astounded by the ability with
which women turned to the new kinds of work. “Not only,” said one such
observer, “has the War provided an incentive to women’s work on a scale
never dreamt of in times of peace, it has caused women, more
particularly those engaged in new occupations, to realise as they have
never done before their own capacity.”[201] The old barriers against
their employment on work suited to them and valuable to the community
were, for the time, steadily and firmly removed one after another, and
with surprising rapidity when guidance of State officials was applied to
this removal. Women in the factory realised—some with astonishment—that
they were entitled to high praise, and to hold a new confidence in
themselves through the natural capacity and zeal shown by them; first,
in intensified production in their own old industries[202] of unheard-of
quantities of cloth, articles of equipment, rations, and so on, for the
Army and Navy; secondly (and later), in speeding up the supply of
munitions of war. The emphasis on their merits as industrial war-workers
was greater than had ever been explicitly laid on their ordinary life-
preserving activities as homemakers and mothers. Nevertheless a new
impetus was given, through this enhanced valuation of women, to public
health work for mothers and infants and care of the child—or maternity,
infant and child welfare, as it became customary to call such work.
To return to women as “substitutes,” a new generation of adolescent
girls had time to come into this form of industrial occupation for
female workers—while the scope of “munitions of war” grew until they
nearly engulfed ordinary peacetime kinds of production. These girls had
never known anything but wartime manufacture. They also had what very
few British girls before them had had under the factory system,
opportunities for training by intensive instruction, and they laid hold
of these opportunities with remarkable power.
A new version of an old couplet came into my mind on thinking over an
incident in a remote rural district when, one evening in the fourth year
of the War, a friend of mine spoke to a village girl on her way to a
meeting at the lately founded Women’s Institute:
“‘Where are you going to, my pretty maid?’
‘To hear of substitute women,’ she said.”
The girl spoke as if it were a subject of lively interest to herself,
and one that would of course interest any intelligent human being.
“Women substitutes!” What could anyone have made of such a term before
A.D. 1915? Of butter or leather “substitutes” we had heard, but not of
women “substitutes.” And yet many books were written about them in the
last three years of war. Books that will be studied by historians of the
future seeking to explain the extraordinary growth during a critical
stage of the War—when millions of men had been taken away from the
possibility of production—in the supply of shells and guns to the
waiting artillery batteries; in the inexhaustible production of
aeroplanes; in the fitting and refitting of the Army with its boots, its
razors, its surgical dressings, its millions of tins of preserved
rations, its millions of smoke helmets; and in the gigantic supplies of
the hundreds of other kinds of “munitions” all ceaselessly mounting in
quantity.[203]
It is impracticable, and it is indeed unnecessary, to re-tell in detail
here the story of the growth in production and in supplies, or to
estimate exactly the share that women and girls took in making the
expansion possible. Those who have not access to the literature can by a
visit to the National War Museum put themselves in possession of the
principal facts. Our concern is with the health conditions and the
attendant circumstances of the women’s employment. It helps, however, to
a true impression to sum up shortly the main stages of their entry into
new forms of work.
When men first trooped in their hundreds of thousands, voluntarily, to
the colours in 1914, industrial women found their outlet for the same
impulse to serve the nation in intensified and extended work at their
own more or less customary callings. They found it at the sewing
machine, knitting machine, weaving loom, boot-upper stitching machine,
tin-cutting power press, soldering bench, at tinning of meat, fruit and
vegetable preserves for rations, and so on. Even with this added
intensity of their work and the lengthened hours of employment factory
women could do “a bit of knitting for the soldiers and sailors”—so that
some of them could say, “We never seems to get any rest, but if we did
not do it, no one else could.”[204] They had to play an indispensable,
and, in some cases, a predominant part in supplying the Services with
textile materials, clothing, blankets, mattress covers, with various
kinds of bodily equipment, such as haversacks, bandoliers, light
leather, and miscellaneous small metal articles, and with tents, and all
kinds of general equipment, some time before their share in the
production of “munitions of war” in the form of ordnance, ammunition,
aircraft, chemicals, etc., was even thought of. And claims for women’s
aid in the general service of the home community, in transport,
distribution, clerical and commercial work, were strongly pressed before
the great part they were to play (chiefly by aid of dilution of labour)
in engineering and the larger metal trades came in sight.
A second phase in the industrial wartime employment of women came with
the first thoughts of the “substitution” of women to release men for
military service in the less essential manufacturing industries, next in
industries essential for national needs, and in those where important
export trade could (it was then believed) be developed or maintained.
At the request of the Army Council, the Home Office and Board of Trade
began a series of conferences with associations of employers and workers
to consider what reorganisation of work might be necessary to free as
many men as possible. This work, requiring some diplomacy, was largely
under the guidance of Factory Inspectors, men and women, and it was
necessary to negotiate temporary suspensions of recognised trade union
rules, at the same time providing safe and suitable conditions for the
women employed in processes that were new to them, and heretofore
arranged to suit men’s different ways of working. Agreements were
secured in a number of trades, including hosiery and other textiles,
boot and shoe manufacture, leather tanning, woodworking, baking,
earthenware and china manufacture, printing, and glove making.[205]
These agreements aimed both at preventing misunderstandings and
dislocations at a critical time, and at getting security for future
maintenance of the established standard of the life of industrial
workers.
Orders, known as “Emergency Orders,”[206] were made by the Home Office,
allowing relaxations of the law relating to hours and times of work of
women and young persons, both in munitions and non-munitions industries,
to meet the exceptional circumstances of the time. Certain fresh
safeguards for health or safety were embodied in these Orders, of which
foremost was an obligation laid on the employer to provide means for
preparing and taking meals at the works, and next supervision by
competent women to maintain good conditions.
There were certain large and heavy trades where no agreements between
employers and workers could be arranged owing to lack of organisation on
one side or the other, either of employers or of workers, and here the
Inspectors closely guided the course of replacement of men and
substitution of women—_e.g._, in flour milling, rubber manufacture, oil
and seed crushing, soap making, sugar refining, paper making, cement
making, and in gasworks. In all these “non-munition” industries—which
tended more and more to provide material of war, and thus to become
technically “munitions” as the War progressed—they advised employers on
the necessary modification and reorganisation of processes, as well as
on good conditions for production. In the factories, where women had not
before been employed in process work, a noticeable solicitude was
frequently shown by the employers and managers for protection of the
health and safety of the women, and all paid tribute to their
adaptability and natural quickness, as well as to their fine spirit.
It was in a large shell factory, early in 1915, before the immense
development of the Ministry of Munitions, that a foreman said to me as
we stood watching the then novel and arresting sight of numerous women
and girls intent upon their work at lathes, “There is more in this than
people think; women have been too much kept back.” Several Inspectors
said that the cotton workers, set free by unemployment in their own
great trade, particularly enjoyed their new work in shell making, and
found it less heavy, and conditions better, than in the textile
factories. Munition factories in Birmingham profited early in 1915 by a
temporary depression in the Staffordshire Potteries, receiving
contingents of intelligent women from gilding and painting shops—high-
grade labour—for the new work. In Lancashire one heard of young women
proud to have learnt how to grind tools and set machines. In wire-
drawing and engineering trades an Inspector said it was remarkable,
considering the half-heartedness of the initial experiment of employing
women, how general was the satisfaction over its success. It was an
everyday occurrence to be told frankly by foremen that “the women are
doing very well indeed, much better than I ever thought they could.”
Then came the third and, technically, the greatest experiment in women’s
employment during the War, under the organisation of the Ministry of
Munitions—their concentration on engineering and munitions supplies with
much dilution and with highly specialised training in processes. It was
this stage that led not only to the immense additional power in
repetitive production, but also to the discovery in engineering, by
enthusiastic “dilution” officers, of certain processes requiring manual
dexterity and delicacy of touch, in which women could do better than
men, and some even which women alone could do.[207] This phase can only
be fairly studied in published documents, catalogues, and illustrations
issued by the Ministry of Munitions, and at the National War Museum. It
was under the Ministry of Munitions that the first systematic attempt
was made to superimpose personal conditions of welfare—an essential for
good output—on the general hygiene of environment in the factory already
required by the Factory Act. And one of the earliest steps taken by Mr.
Seebohm Rowntree, the Director of Welfare, appointed in the close of
1915 for “controlled” munition factories, was to obtain through me from
my staff of Women Inspectors a detailed survey of conditions actually
obtaining in each large “controlled” and national factory, with our
recommendations on the arrangements desirable for the welfare of the
women and girls.[208] This work was carried out in 1916 and 1917, and it
is touched on in my next and last chapter.
The fourth and final new experience for industrial women, during the
War, came with the urgent need in 1917 and 1918 of trying to substitute
them for men, not only in process work that was likely to be suitable
for them, but also in many processes and manual work heavier than had
yet been attempted—for example, in the forging of bullet-proof plates,
in driving overhead cranes, in certain heavy foundry processes, in a few
operations in shipbuilding yards, in retort-house work, in internal
scaling of boilers, in ferro-concrete pile making, and in new varieties
of heavy labouring work. None of these (surviving the experimental
stages),[209] except possibly scaling of boilers, appear to be heavier
or more laborious, however, than work done long years before by women in
tinplate works, in fireproof brick works, in timber yards, or
galvanising works; and certainly none surpassed in dirt or
disagreeableness the old work of women in such processes as gut
scraping, rag sorting, or “breeze sifting.”
It was chiefly in these last two years of the War that development of
women’s employment took place in chemical works, heavy metal works, and
in gasworks. Some really interesting developments took place. In forge
work—for example, in one factory making heavy tank parts—the whole of
the process work was done by women, numbering 300; men, numbering six,
being employed solely in keeping machines in running order. “The women
work the furnaces, moulding presses, and do the grinding, besides
trolleying, stacking, loading on to wagons, and women ‘chemists’ also
take the temperatures.”[210] Here close investigation (made by one of
the “first-aid” Inspectors) showed that there were no signs of serious
injury amongst the women. The same conclusion was reached by her as
regards women drivers of large overhead cranes—a dangerous occupation,
however, in which some women met with fatal accidents. A cement works in
Scotland was run almost entirely by women’s labour, and their employment
in this heavy work had been made successful by the aid of mechanical
appliances, the only men being rotary kiln men—doing very heavy and hot
work, needing considerable training—besides foremen and engineers. At a
large steel works in Yorkshire, where the managers were of opinion in
1916 that women would be useless to them, there were, in 1917, 300
employed to their satisfaction in yard work, painting, labelling, and
crane driving. “Loading and unloading of ore is heavy, and can only be
done by the women without injury if they take the work slowly and
quietly.”[211] Inspectors found that some women, either from the natural
but dangerous desire to show their strength or to get through their work
quickly, lifted weights far too heavy for them. A foreman, however, in
charge of construction work at a blast furnace who had trained women
under him, “spoke exceedingly highly of them, and said he would be
willing to undertake any ferro-concrete work with women only.” They had
made over 1,000 piles 31 feet in length; they were bending and preparing
all the steelwork used in the construction of the wharf, bridges, etc.;
they worked the stone-crushing machines and concrete mixer, stacked the
piles when made, and discharged stone, iron, etc., from railway trucks.
Managers of gasworks expressed surprise at the good class of women found
willing to undertake this hot, heavy, and rather dirty work. In the
severe winter of 1916–17, when women were first being tried in heavy
processes in gasworks, a manager, praising their grit and pluck, said,
“If they stick this, they will stick anything.”
In such places good protective clothing and specially adapted
implements, such as light barrows and shovels, automatic weight-lifting
appliances, and other labour and fatigue-saving plant and machinery,
played an immensely important part in enabling the women to do the work.
Inspectors unanimously held that at no time had legislative protection
for women, and competent inspection, been more needed than in these
final years of the War, when women were eagerly pressing into processes
and heavy labour of a kind new to them. There was generally an ample
supply of women available, and the only places where one heard of
shortage were in some of their old factory occupations, where conditions
often remained at a lower level than in the new occupations, and where
wages did not rise until later to meet the increased cost of living.
In 1917 and 1918 also, some marked development of women’s employment
took place in relatively light processes, both skilled and semi-skilled,
in certain non-munition industries, which were perfectly suited to their
physical ability, and for which some intensive training was open to them
in technical colleges. The most interesting examples, I think, were
scientific instrument making, in which industry, by March, 1918,
substitution of women had become general in some processes and frequent
in others; and in leather-case making and fancy leather work. Especially
in the former of these industries new openings appeared for women as
works’ chemists or in laboratory research at the factory, as well as in
the manufacture of glass prisms, lenses, thermometers, and many metal
processes. As regards the future, the Home Office Memorandum on
Substitution of Women declared in 1919 that there were “good prospects
for women in this industry.”[212] Early in 1920, however, “the steady
withdrawal of women from employment in men’s industries that began after
the Armistice was almost completed.” And I was obliged to conclude at
the end of the year that there was “as yet no fulfilment of the
expectations that after the War a body of industries and operations
offering a hopeful field of fresh employment would be open to women
where their War experience could be turned to account. On the contrary,
an automatically operating force has closed all these expected new
avenues.”[213]
As the number of Men Inspectors decreased during the early part of the
War, through claims of military duty and other national service where
their technical knowledge and experience was invaluable, the number of
Women Inspectors gradually increased, but only to a total of thirty.
Much of the almost incredible amount of work they managed to get through
was done by conference with, and information and advice to, other bodies
of workers—the Women Welfare Officers and Dilution Officers of the
Ministry of Munitions, the Superintendents of Women’s Labour in munition
works, and the Local Advisory Committees (under the Ministry of Labour),
concerned with the welfare outside the factories of the immense
aggregations of workers who were drawn away from their homes into great
centres for production of munitions of war. Some of them served also on
various Central Committees, of which the two foremost were the Health of
Munition Workers Committee and the Women’s Employment Committee under
the Ministry of Reconstruction. When the Ministry of National Service
was set up, the main lines of the great task of fitting substitute women
into men’s industrial work were already planned, and much of the
substitution was already carried into effect under the guidance of the
whole Factory Inspectorate in co-operation with the Employment
Department, Ministry of Labour; and when several of the Men Inspectors
were “seconded” to the Ministry of National Service the work continued
by co-operation between the Departments.
Much had to be done in bringing factories, and whole industries, up to
the same standard in making the necessary substitution. In some
factories the advance was more rapid than in others—far more reliance
being shown in putting women into positions of real responsibility. For
example, in only one malting house was it found that a forewoman was in
complete charge of the women’s work, with technical responsibility for
regulating the temperature of the kiln and judging the right time for
“turning” the floors. And in an exceptional fruit-preserving factory
output was doubled and engineers’ repairs reduced by half for the
season, when a forewoman was put in complete control, a control which
included not only the jam-making department, but also the maintenance in
good working order of machinery, boiler, and engine.[214]
Inspectors sometimes expressed disappointment at the limited confidence
shown by employers in substituting women in the higher posts of
industry, but enough was done to “suggest a fair promise of future
development of women’s natural aptitude for organising.” The difficulty
lay even more in that direction than in process work, through lack of
sufficient opportunity for women to obtain broad and sound technical
training in the short time available. In large munition works, however,
in two ways useful examples were given of technical control by women;
women “charge-hands,” having gone through intensive training in
processes, controlled the operations of small groups of workers,
sometimes men and boys as well as women and girls; and in the work of
Women Welfare Superintendents there was a tendency to develop their
responsibility in the direction of carrying out some of the functions of
a manager.[215]
Although a large number of women came for the first time, from domestic
work and from home life, into industry during the years of strongest
demand for substitutes and munition workers,[216] a considerable
proportion of the increase in these two classes came from the return to
the factories of former industrial workers, and by their transfer from
the less essential trades. The highest proportion of those entering from
domestic work or home life was usually found in factories situated in
localities where other industries were not present. For example, in two
chemical works in the country it was found that half the women came from
home life, one-quarter from domestic service, and the remainder from
other factories. In a Manchester flour mill one-third came from home
life, a few from domestic service, and many from miscellaneous
factories.
It was in such places as these, where the substitute women were
unfamiliar with factory life and with the safeguards provided by Factory
Acts and Orders, that protection by a trained Inspectorate was found to
be most needed. Two points of considerable interest came out in the
complaints from women themselves. In the years 1914–15, when long and
exceptional hours (whether entirely illegal or else sanctioned by
Emergency Orders) were at their highest point, the women worked
willingly; and they complained only rarely and in extreme cases. On the
whole, there was a great proportionate rise, on the other hand, in the
complaints relating to matters of sanitation and safety, 63·1 per cent.
of the whole in 1917, as compared with 47·3 per cent. in 1913.
The working of excessive and irregular hours, a natural outcome of the
confused haste for enormous production at the beginning of the War,
seemed to bring new light to many employers on the uselessness of long
hours and long, unbroken spells for continued large output, however
great the generally prevalent willingness of the workers to help to
their utmost. Already before the War, as we have seen in Chapter II., it
was a commonplace in Inspectors’ reports that the strain of the legal
twelve-hours’ day of absence from home[217] was too great, having regard
to the home duties of most women, who had frequently also a long
distance to travel to and from work. In the first year of the War the
Inspectors showed that the main resistance to excessive overtime came
more from the employers’ side (in spite of exceptions among them) than
from the workers. In a Crown factory the experience was “that any
lengthening of the day, beyond 6 p.m. and a total of eight and a half
hours’ work daily, exhausts the workers, and is of no advantage in
increasing output.... A well-known wholesale clothier employing a
thousand women on Government contracts gave it as his well-considered
opinion that the full period allowed under the Factory Act ... is
sufficient, and any work beyond this is useless: it exhausts the workers
and does not pay.... The manager of a powder-bag factory ... found,
after some weeks’ experience, that the pieceworkers were making less
during overtime than during the normal period of employment.... A
cardboard box manufacturer told me he had put his workers on shorter
hours only to find that their output and earnings were equal to those on
the full factory day.”[218] The interesting and very valuable researches
made by scientific investigators for the Health of Munition Workers
Committee and for the Home Office regarding fatigue, did but amplify and
give scientific confirmation to the commonsense reasonings and
conclusions of many manufacturers about hours of work. Nevertheless, at
the beginning of the wartime pressure, it was clear that some deviation
from the fixed Factory Act limits was necessary to counterbalance delays
in getting out contracts, dislocations in movement of supplies of
materials, and other interferences with a continuous run of work in
making up articles. The Emergency Orders granted to numerous individual
firms at the beginning were unquestionably necessary. Later, as
experience grew, it was possible to standardise these for whole
industries and groups of industries, greatly to reduce night work and
overtime, nearly to abolish Sunday work, and ultimately to prohibit the
night work for young girls under sixteen and for boys under fourteen
years, that had been temporarily permitted at the outset of the national
emergency. The new evidence gathered by scientific investigators gave
increased strength to older humanitarian arguments, as well as fresh
point to the conclusions of certain practical managers that excessive
hours without regular intervals defeat their purpose of speeding up
production. The experiments that were made, under Home Office orders in
various shift systems,[219] showed how increased output might, in times
of pressure, be obtained from limited plant and machines without
exceeding the working powers of the delicate “human machine.” The
finding of the Health of Munition Workers Committee in 1915, that the
strain of long hours had not, so far, “caused any serious breakdown
among workers, though many statements indicative of fatigue had been
received,” was confirmed by reports of Factory Inspectors coming from
all parts of the country. No marked increase in sickness rates could be
found, yet among foremen and managers, who were less able than workers
to take time off, and among individual older men and women, there were
cases where health certainly suffered from the strain. After the War was
over an experienced Welfare Superintendent told me of great lassitude
amongst girls under her care, and she said that it had been necessary to
send a high proportion of them to holiday homes before they quite
recovered their natural elasticity and capacity for a full ordinary
day’s work.
Women’s weekly and daily totals in the stress of the earlier years of
War, long and fatiguing as they were, rarely rose (apart from special
aberrations which successful prosecutions did much to check) to the
extremes too commonly reached by men munition workers. Forewomen and
women superintendents were more often employed in the later than the
earlier years, and thus were spared some of the excessive overstrain
that at first fell on foremen and managers. In factories where the long
double twelve-hour shift system with alternate weeks of night and day
work for each shift obtained, evidence of absenteeism and poor
timekeeping made it highly probable that accumulating fatigue and
overstrain had been partly averted by the natural tendency of the
workers to take an occasional day or halfday off. It was truly
fortunate, however, for the ultimate health of the people that as
strictness of discipline, in controlled factories, in enforcing regular
attendance of the worker under penalty grew, some reasonable
standardisation of shift systems and considerable development of
canteens and other welfare arrangements had been secured.
By the end of 1917 it was evident that for whatever reason, probably
through better wages, providing much better food than formerly, and
through increased personal care of the workers in the factories,
sickness among the women was not increasing, but rather
diminishing.[220] The evidence given before the Health of Munition
Workers Committee was that sickness benefit was lessening, and I learned
by special enquiry that an almoner’s records in a large general hospital
in a great munition area showed that as few as thirty women and girl
munition workers had attended as out-patients in six months.
Even though much detail as regards the best daily and weekly period and
spells of hours remains to be worked out by practical experimentation
for different types of factory work with differing kinds and degrees of
effort and strain involved, the large-scale demonstrations regarding
conditions and output in wartime have both added to our knowledge and
also popularly spread that knowledge. It may be doubted whether the full
potential strength of the social motive in industry—the sentiment of
national service—has been at all fairly grasped in its bearing on true
success in industrial production. Yet the leaven is there, its workings
can be seen, and it is the one unalloyed gain that came from the
stupendous and terrible effort of production for “munitions of war.” The
new lights that this effort brought on the dependence of good output and
efficiency on right adjustment of hours, labour-saving appliances,
fatigue prevention, food, have but a limited value for the commonwealth
if the aims of industry continue to be “merely material production of
wealth and things unrelated to spiritual values” or social ends.[221]
Women’s extended entry into industry from 1915 to 1918 did indeed bring
social considerations into the conditions of work, and some of these
things remain. Yet they can hardly last if they do not lead to “the
ordering, the comforting, and the beautiful adornment of the State” in
its organised industrial capacity.
During the time of the greatest zeal for introduction of women as
“substitutes” into men’s industries, and well on into 1919, it seemed
almost at times to be forgotten how essentially noneconomic and
temporary both basis and framework of the introduction were. Except as
regards some extensions within women’s own traditional industries, women
were in reality in these new places simply as “substitutes,” and, in
nearly all, under a solemn covenant that it was solely for the duration
of the War. An entirely new peacetime departure is needed for
application of women’s freshly proven powers to new industrial
developments. In the future women will surely attain their better
industrial status not as “substitutes,” not as secondary men, but in
their own fields (with aid of better training), and also in other
carefully chosen fields, as joint labourers with men. The War emphasised
a very true and natural interchangeability of men and women for many
emergencies. The new “Science of Labour” has perhaps come at the very
time of most need, with insistence on the essential complementariness of
the industrial aptitudes of men and women.[222] There at least—in
industrial labour—their complete fusion would mean an economic and
social loss.
While the hopeful expansion in industry following very soon after the
War lasted, there was a remarkable, though temporary, re-absorption of
women into their own former occupations. They took with them certain
great gains from their recent experiences. They brought into their old
industrial environment new ideas of fellowship as well as knowledge of
fresh processes and of better rates of pay; they brought strengthened
capacity for trade union organisation as well as new ideas of the value
of intensive training. Not least, they brought a new demand for better
means at the works of preparing and taking sufficient food, which is the
material foundation of all efficient labour.
We may here sum up the possible permanent gains to industry as well as
to women themselves, brought from their wartime experiences in
factories, ready for the time when expansion of trade again begins.
It has been seen that in many ways women have far greater powers of
endurance, activity, and enterprise—quite apart from new forms of skill—
than was formerly admitted or expected of them. We know that they gain
in health by fresh kinds of outdoor and labouring work not previously
customary for them. We have seen conclusive evidence of their capacity
to quickly become proficient at engineering tasks—with the aid of semi-
automatic machinery that is often intricate—and of their powers of
sustained interest in such work under great pressure for output.
The enquiries and valuable memoranda of the Health of Munition Workers
Committee[223] brought out, more completely than any previous official
reports had done, the practical importance of selective care in setting
women and young workers on to work, as well as the need for the improved
personal conditions and skilled supervision by women, that are
considered in the next chapter.
In addition to the gain of a higher standard in women’s own expectation
as regards their conditions, there is a new atmosphere in the factories,
traceable to the women’s increased self-reliance engendered by the
appreciation that has been expressed for their work and capacity. No one
can realise this more thoroughly than Women Factory Inspectors, meeting
it as they do on the spot, and there comparing past and present. In a
factory where formerly a woman worker would not have disclosed the fact
that she belonged to a trade union, there is a woman shop steward ready
to come forward and show the Inspector round, the manager expecting her
to do so.[224]
There is a new outlook on the possibility of applying science as well as
humanitarian motives to use and care of labour. To no workers is this
more important than to women, with the dual claims on them of home cares
and breadwinning. The studies of the Industrial Fatigue Research Board
have a special significance in their application to women in industry.
Another gain from War experiences peculiarly affecting women—although it
has also a much wider bearing—is the very considerable testing of the
practical value of well-designed appliances, adapted machinery and
lifting tackle, for saving human labour, quite apart from its power to
lessen cost of production. The aim of lessening human toil for its own
sake, not merely for commercial reasons, has a new interest.
Before the War there was for women and girls in industry, outside one or
two ancient skilled occupations (such as weaving, high-class
dressmaking), so little arrangement for training that it was negligible.
During the War, by special organisation of training for women
substitutes and dilutees in technical schools and colleges and in
instructional factories, women’s technical and personal capacity was
publicly measured. And for the first time national resources were
applied, under the kind of direction that suited women, to adaptation of
the means of technical training in process work to the results best
obtainable from them. At last, there was a demonstration on a scale
sufficiently large to make the truth incontrovertible, that women
workers are not necessarily the less valuable for production to meet the
nation’s daily need because their pace and natural ways of working
differ from those suited to men.
And with all these new lights came also the political enfranchisement of
women, which enables them to survey with new eyes the too passive and
subordinate position that they have in the main hitherto held in
industry. Though from time to time a set-back may occur, they are surely
summoned to take their full share in the building up of a better
industrial life for the people—as fellow-producers with men, but with
their “other” point of view as guardians of the home.
CHAPTER VIII
FACTORY WELFARE AND ITS RECOGNITION BY PARLIAMENT; WORKS’ COMMITTEES AND
WELFARE MANAGEMENT
“The sweat of industry would dry and dye but for the end it workes
too.”
“The sweat of industry!” It was in a factory where excessively hot,
heavy, and humid work, in which women bore their share, was carried on
that a foreman once said to a Woman Factory Inspector: “We are told that
man should earn his bread in the sweat of his brow, but here we earn it
in the sweat of the whole body.” The saying implied a sense of the need
of a new standard of control. It is with a new social way of control
that this final chapter is concerned, and we were only at the beginning
of seeing what it might achieve when the period covered by this book
closes.
Labour of a sustained kind, bodily or mental, is, as it always has been,
the lot of the greater part of civilised mankind, and on the wealth it
produces depends the possibility of any means of ordinary welfare for
the community. Since the dawn of history energy, and the sustained
capacity for the essentially human function of work,[225] have been the
test of racial quality, and the power of a people to survive and develop
has depended on power in some measure to socialise the use of that
function. And yet, until the idea lately arose of analysing the
psychological and physiological capacity of the human agent in industry,
and of studying the rhythm of fatigue and rest, custom and instinct were
the main, and sometimes the only, safeguards of the natural pleasure of
exercising this function. Among the great majority of consumers of
articles produced by the factory system there was, even more fixedly
than among employers, a blind acceptance of the fact that:
“... for them many a weary hand did swelt,
In torched mines and noisy factories....”
They had little means of knowing definitely, however, what it all
involved, and it was a great encouragement to the Inspectors to see, as
the facts came out gradually, through the publication of Annual Reports
of the Chief Inspector and of police court proceedings, the growth of
various societies for the help of the workers.
The overstrain, the overloading, and occasionally the misuse of the
delicate human motor that has persistently characterised much of our
factory production even by young workers, can, in some measure, be
gathered from facts touched on in Chapter IV. The frequent lack of
simple conditions and appliances conducive to energy and preventive of
unnecessary onset of fatigue has been seen in Chapter II. And yet, in
spite of all, the marvellous capacity for much contentment, sometimes
even joy, in work never perished. “Weaving is a wonderful art, you are
never done learning,” was a saying, expressing the enlightening power of
thought, by a Yorkshire textile trade unionist, but the pride with which
a woman weaver will inform you that she has been reckoned “a champion
weaver” tells the same tale of the power that the exercise of skill in
the old trades had over workers’ minds (and thus over their bodies). And
the spirit appears in far humbler workers, sometimes on apparently
monotonous work; even more strikingly did it appear in the new processes
opened up for women in the War.
That “created man is made to create, from the poet to the potter”[226]
is an idea that in some degree, however inadequately, has always been
implicitly accepted for men with their special aptitudes in exercise of
energy. As for women with their dual service in social life, in the home
as well as in productive work, realisation of the essential part that
they played in industry was slow in coming, even after the development
in the early part of the nineteenth century of textile industries on a
great scale by aid of women and children. It needed the second great
“industrial revolution,” referred to in the last chapter, to make it
plain to the whole community that a great deal of women’s pre-War
industrial work was either more skilled or heavier than had yet been
generally admitted, and that, whether skilled or heavy, it was
indispensable to the success and welfare of the trades into which it
entered. During that testing time the share that women workers held in
the racial reserve endowments of endurance, adaptability, and capacity
for labour also came out clearly.
While it was the unprecedented part played by massed factory production
in the Great War that brought the essentially social service rendered by
industrial labour into public recognition, it was the prominence of
women’s share in it that finally made legal provision for “welfare”
possible.
The injurious manner and extent of employment of children in the
beginning of the factory system had, as we have seen,[227] first made
possible any effective Parliamentary intervention to secure elementary
conditions of health and safety in factories and workshops. The
experience and its lessons were not forgotten, and it was almost common
ground between employers and the State in 1916 that rapidly extended
employment of women and girls must be accompanied with measures for
their welfare and safety to prevent injurious consequences for society.
Voluntary welfare, with here and there a little co-operation from
science, had grown up into a conscious “movement” in industrial life in
our country during the twenty years preceding the War. In its principles
it differed little from those of which Robert Owen reminded his fellow-
manufacturers in 1813 when he showed them that, just as power-driven
machinery was improved by being carefully tended, kept clean, and well
lubricated, so the far more delicate living human motor could be
benefited if carefully studied and well cared for. Yet the only possible
basis on which the movement could grow vigorously in such a factory
system as that of the nineteenth century was first laid when State
administration began effectually to enforce on all employers alike
national standards in hours, health, safety, defence against industrial
diseases, and finally against sweated wages.
Those reformers and administrators who wrought ceaselessly between 1892
and 1914 to give effect to new safeguards of health in the factory
surroundings of the worker were laying foundations, better than they
knew, for social aims in factory administration. The Women Inspectors,
indeed, as we have seen, had persistently invited employers to pass on
from hygiene in the factory to better care of the welfare of the
workers, but they never doubted that completion of the former was the
indispensable groundwork of voluntary welfare.
A new stage and a new opportunity for the factory system in Great
Britain began when, in 1916, Parliament first made provision for
“securing the welfare of the workers,”[228] and when (almost at the same
moment) statesmen and administrators called for the aid, in many ways,
of joint industrial councils of employers and workers who could follow
up welfare provisions and help to make them correspond to the needs of
the workers. The legal provision by itself could carry “welfare” only a
little way: development of the means of co-operation between workers and
employers, and between both of them and the Factory Inspectors and
scientific investigators, was an indispensable adjunct in this new
enterprise. The very unrest and suspicion that met some of the first
systematic attempts of managers at welfare supervision, in controlled
munition factories lacking representative works’ committees, made that
plain.
The legal provisions in the Act of 1916 were framed, of course, for the
welfare of both men and women workers, but it was the large-scale
introduction of women substitutes and dilutees into men’s trades, and
their migration by tens of thousands to centres of munitions production,
that, in fact, had made the starting-point for the new socialising
measure. And so, at last, in factory production we had come full circle,
and “the guiding ideas of women in regard to conditions essential for a
good industrial life of both men and women” could begin to influence
industrial life, openly and unofficially, as well as through Inspectors
and a few enlightened employers. Scientific aid from many investigators
could also be brought to bear effectively on the task of civilising
working conditions when a true social structure in factory production
had once begun.
In England, work of a scientific kind for the reform of the factory
system had been hitherto occupied chiefly in the directions shown in the
chapter on dangerous processes. From the Continent of Europe[229] came
the earliest direct researches of physiologists and psychologists into
causes and prevention of industrial fatigue and into the possibilities
of vocational selection of workers; while from America came “motion
study” and the work of the efficiency expert. True to the humanitarian
bent as a whole of her factory legislation, it was Great Britain that
first planned a statutory basis for promoting the welfare of industrial
workers. It is open to one to wonder whether this factor was not
decisive in leading to the great place given in the Peace Treaty to
constructive work by the League of Nations for the social welfare of
labour.
Before attempting to sketch the legal and administrative position in
promotion of the welfare of the factory worker in Great Britain between
1916 and 1921, the completing of the outline of the story told in this
book requires a backward glance at some of the experiences of the
Inspectors while voluntary welfare grew up. Without the pioneer work of
employers by works’ welfare committees and other agencies encouraged by
the sympathy and advice of the Inspectors, and without the long
succession of Inspectors’ Reports recording that work, the legislative
step would have been difficult if not impracticable.
We can neither here treat the subject of factory welfare systematically,
nor attempt to cover ground now being gradually covered by textbooks and
pamphlets. We are concerned simply with the voluntary growth of
attention to the matter before 1916 in an economic system that was built
up on a theory adverse to its implications, and with the immediate
outcome of the new legal experiment.[230] When the great pressure came
for munitions and all the indispensable commodities in the field of war,
the voluntary movement had gained so much experience that it was
possible to make strikingly rapid application of measures and means for
canteens, first-aid and ambulance work, cloakrooms and washing
conveniences, suitable protective clothing for very varied processes,
rest rooms, recreation for the large new aggregations of workers in
crowded centres, some trained welfare supervision—in fact, for all the
specific subjects that were included in Section 7 of the Act of 1916 as
primâ faciê necessary to the health and welfare of the workers.
Selection of workers for particular types of operations and some
increased care for prevention of unnecessary fatigue naturally followed.
The scattered efforts and examples, all over the country and in every
kind of industry, were rapidly wrought up into an officially guided
movement by the combined efforts of Departments concerned, under the
Home Office, the Ministry of Munitions, the Ministry of Labour, and
last, but not least, by the Canteen Committee of the Board of Control
(Liquor Traffic), and by the non-executive Committee above-mentioned,
the Health of Munitions Workers Committee, with all its important
published memoranda.
Before all else in the welfare movement it was the work for canteens,
for access by the hard-pressed munition workers to something like
adequate food decently cooked and conveniently served, that was the
decisive factor in enabling them to sustain their intense fatigue. The
great need in many places for tolerable means of preparing and taking
food at or near the works had been the earliest and most strongly
expressed of all the demands of the woman worker for elementary means of
welfare. For years the most frequent of the complaints I had to classify
in my annual reports as “outside the Acts” was that messrooms (or food
and drinking water) were not accessible or not well maintained; and many
workers found it hard to understand or believe that the law did not
intervene in this matter except where dangerous processes came under
special regulations or where poisonous materials were handled.
The success of the movement for canteens in those years of war strain
has effected a completely changed outlook on the question in the
factories themselves, that makes the past conditions remembered by the
Factory Inspectors—especially between the years from 1893 to 1903—seem
now well nigh incredible. For no workers was this change more greatly
needed than for the poorly fed women and girl workers. The first time,
however, that I specifically used the word “welfare” in an annual report
in connection with lack of means for the personal well-being of the
workers was, not as regards either food or rest, but as regards the
incomprehensible general failure to supply means of maintaining personal
cleanliness, which came especially to the front in 1899 in the early
pressure of preparing soldiers’ rations in another war. The failure to
include the matter in the English Factory Acts was the more difficult to
understand when one saw how carefully access to washing conveniences was
provided for in French and German codes. “Employers,” I said, “who have
sufficient ... interest in such matters to make the experiment, quickly
find their profit in provision for the welfare of their work-women, in
particular those which tend to raise the whole standard of self-respect
among them.” And again: “The need for washing appliances, increasingly
felt among the women and girls, has a moral and social value as well as
a strictly hygienic aspect. It is a matter for surprise how frequently
the effort is made in the most unlikely and difficult circumstances by
working women to turn homeward with a neat and cleanly appearance.”[231]
On the moral and social side, the right and claim of the woman worker to
have her conditions of work supervised by competent women appeared to
the Woman Inspector, from the outset, the only effective remedy for many
kinds of complaints that, like the lack of canteens, were “outside the
Acts.”
And trained women’s superintendence was also conceded during the Great
War, not only in the controlled and national factories, but in the
factories where the Home Office granted exceptional hours under an
Emergency Order or urged the substitution of women to secure the release
of men. It was contended by a workers’ delegate, in 1917, at an inter-
city conference in Sheffield of local advisory committees, that
“welfare” is an ethical and spiritual matter more than it is a material
one; she was sure that working women would always press for the former
elements. However strongly one sees that both material and spiritual or
ethical elements are inherent in the very meaning of “welfare,”[232] one
must pay tribute to the prominence of the latter element in the
complaints from factory womanhood.
In 1900 I was able to quote, from the Inspectors, testimony to the
growth of instances of welfare supervision in factories, where women of
intelligence, refinement, and kindliness are placed as superintendents
or forewomen and exercise a wonderful influence for good over the
workers whom they control.[233] At the same time instances were shown of
very great need for such control, and in various subsequent years it
appeared that it was frequently from such places that serious complaints
came. In great food-producing, sugar, confectionery, and other
factories, the names of manufacturers of world-fame are well known as
pioneers in this movement, but in the older and greater textile
industries employers were slower in taking a definite share in it. When,
in 1907, some striking examples were given of introduction into large
textile mills of _trained_ women superintendents (the first note of a
professional stamp in such appointments), the aim was specifically given
as “an experiment ... to bring about a higher standard of civilisation.”
The manager explained that he was of the opinion that “a woman’s
influence was needed in his mill and that he proposed to appoint a woman
whose duty it would be to supervise health conditions ... ventilation,
temperature, humidity, cleanliness, the registration of all Home Office
requirements, the passing of the children by the certifying surgeon, the
supervision of dining-room and catering arrangements, and occasional
visiting of cases of distress.” A doctor was also appointed,
arrangements were made for special access of the children to public
baths, for good meals for the half-timers; and various other amenities
followed.[234] It was frequently the motive of improving the standard of
health that caused thoughtful employers to embark on these schemes, and
always in such cases efforts were made to provide access to wholesome
food at prices within the reach of the workers. The other side of the
picture may be seen in the following words from Miss Whitworth in the
same year:
“Young girls of fourteen frequently go to work with only three-
halfpence or twopence with which to provide their dinner in Poplar and
Hackney; this kind of worker is greatly in need of some place like the
‘Welcome Institute’ (Isle of Dogs), where she can get a proper meal
for that price. Although some employers have dining-rooms provided
with ovens and women employed to cater for the workers, there are
places where the girls have not even seats that they can use in the
mealtime, and they take their food sitting on the floor, in paper-
sorting works, in laundries, in rope works, and others; cloakrooms are
almost unknown. One finds hats and coats bundled together in passages,
under tables, and along the walls of workrooms and anywhere except in
properly warmed cloakrooms. When girls come a long way to work they do
need to have somewhere to dry their clothes and boots on wet
mornings.”[235]
For years, and perhaps most pressingly from 1906 to 1913, the Inspectors
had emphasised the importance of these and allied matters, and the
urgent need for reform. Their communications, as far back as 1902,
aroused outside sympathies as well as the attention of employers: the
Christian Social Union Research Committee made independent enquiry into
it, and this stimulated among various social workers a movement for
opening simple dining-rooms in localities where there were many
workgirls employed in factories or workshops far from their homes, and
in these some of the help and comfort of a club was provided. The evils
of lack of any care, supervision, or comfort at mealtime pauses was
strikingly obvious where workers were legally bound to be excluded from
workrooms during mealtimes because of the presence of dust, acid, or
other matter in the manufacture, making the place unsuited for the
consumption of food.
It would take too long to quote from records of our earlier work in this
connection. The evil was sufficiently brought out through the enquiry in
1911 (already referred to) by Miss Whitlock, M.B., into dusty processes
in the Midlands. She said then:
“Absence of a messroom or of proper washing accommodation was the rule
in the Sheffield buffing shops, and quite common in the Birmingham
ones. The rule forbidding the taking of meals in these shops was
absolutely neglected, and the conditions under which the women ate
their meals were sometimes appalling. In combined asbestos and rubber
works, where the dust of some rooms and the naphtha fumes in others
might certainly suggest the desirability of a messroom, this was not
infrequently wanting. It is, of course, quite common to find wet
spinning rooms with numbers of workers sitting on cloths on the wet
floor to take their dinner—and upturned tins in carding rooms—because
seats or tables for the occasion, even where a messroom is provided,
cleanliness, proper heating, and a cheerful appearance, are by no
means common. At one factory the messroom was known amongst the girls
as the ‘dead house,’ and certainly the resemblance to a mortuary was
not imaginary. At another I found shortly before the dinner a
temperature of 40°F., and was informed that the heating apparatus had
been out of order for some time.”[236]
The formation of two dinner clubs by an association of factory girls in
Sheffield followed on the Inspector’s systematic instructions to
occupiers that the section enjoining exclusion from dusty workrooms
during mealtimes must be obeyed. Similar results followed the same kind
of concentrated work in other towns. Employers gave some help to the
movement, and it developed into greater local activity during the great
production of munitions.
Many interesting examples reported in the years 1908 to 1912, both of
good and careful provision, and its total absence, drove home the
importance of direct endeavour by manufacturers to promote conditions of
ordinary human welfare in their factories for the workers who spend so
many hours in them. One Inspector would comment on the “pathetic
gratitude” of rag-sorters for a decent mealroom in districts where any
provision at all was rare:
“The subject is one of the utmost importance for workers, who often
leave home at 5.30 a.m., or earlier, and have nearly an hour’s walk.
They have to take their food with them, and the only means of warming
it is the steam-heated sink in the yard.... I counted nine
confectioners’ and fried-fish shops in three-quarters of a mile in a
main road all besieged by workers during the dinner hour.”
Another Inspector would urge that nothing could exceed the discomfort in
which meals were often taken, the food on the edge of a workbench
covered with work that must not suffer from contact; the worker seated
on the most unrestful kind of stool.[237] In 1909 and 1910 Miss Escreet
repeated the special requests of cardboard box makers for seats to
obviate (as they said) the necessity for sitting either on the table or
the floor at mealtimes—their work being mostly done standing, and
messrooms and cloakrooms being then almost unknown luxuries in that
industry. “In the large places gas-cooking stoves are provided and a
woman is kept who serves the workers in various ways, warming their
meals, heating their glue, etc., but for these benefits the workers
generally pay at least in part.”
Just as the question of proper canteens and messroom arrangements was
bound up with organisation and good welfare superintendence, so also did
other items appear to be associated with it in the Inspector’s reports—
_e.g._, suitable protective clothing for those engaged in dusty or dirty
processes, in excessively wet or excessively hot processes, in use of
acid or caustic liquids, or in working about dangerous machines.
Cloakroom arrangements and their care were specially closely bound up
with the possibility of securing responsible supervision—and for years
in many places the difficulty of getting any adequate attention to
seating arrangements proved on the whole one of the most intractable
problems that the Inspector had to deal with, so long as seats remained
a matter “outside the Acts.” Complaints continued year after year of the
strain of standing occupations, of disciplinary refusal by foremen to
allow workers to sit down at all during spells of work, of vibration
jarring the nervous system through ordinary chairs or while standing.
Seats remained in this category down to 1916, and great must have been
the loss to industry as well as to individual workers through the long
years when conservation of strength by reasonably good seating
arrangements was widely neglected and sometimes ignorantly opposed by
managers.
In 1907, for example, repeated complaints were received of lack of
seats, and some could not be remedied through unwillingness of employers
to accept advice on the subject. In a factory where in the previous year
the injury to health to girls had been shown and advice tendered, it was
found in 1907 that stools had been provided for only thirty-seven out of
three hundred little girls, most of them being between thirteen and
fifteen years of age.
“Many looked delicate and weary, and said they got very tired before the
end of the morning and afternoon spells of work, standing as they did
for five hours at a time ... some seemed to be suffering from swollen
legs and feet or from debility.... Reference was made to the certifying
surgeon, who suspended one from employment and urged the employer to
provide seats for the others. After much persuasion the employer
undertook to increase the seating accommodation, yet when the surgeon
attempted to qualify his certificate with the proviso that the girl must
be provided with a seat this employer said that any girl whose
certificate was so qualified should be discharged.” In such ways did the
need for simple direct regulation of these matters become abundantly
evident. In a spinning factory where seats had been provided for the
preparers, one woman told the Inspector that she had left a factory
where she was earning sixpence a week more in order to work at this
factory where she would have a seat, and “now she was ready for another
day’s work every evening.”[238]
“The custom of employing half-time children on their feet ‘buttoning’ at
shirt factories in Lancashire, on the alternate day system, so that they
stood for ten hours on the alternate days, was found by the Women
Inspectors to be most unsatisfactory. In a few factories seats were
provided at their request by the occupiers, but in some places
persuasion failed: the children worked rapidly, and it was said they
could not get through the same amount if they sat at tables.”[239]
One felt how closely all this was allied to the overstrain touched on
above in Chapter IV. in weight lifting and carrying, and through
overpressure in various ways. In its many manifestations overstrain of
young workers seemed elusive of direct prohibition, and more amenable to
control by well-developed welfare superintendence in touch with a
department thoroughly versed in prevention of industrial fatigue.
Constructive work starting from a rational basis apparently becomes
inevitable for administration after the first stage of prevention of
gross abuse has been passed.
First-aid and ambulance work in the factory system was clearly a
foremost point in welfare work, and has already been touched on in the
chapter on dangerous processes and accidents. Development of Workmen’s
Compensation Acts greatly strengthened the argument for it among
enlightened managers, and in many large Midland factories a well-
equipped ambulance room, with a fully trained nurse, had afforded
considerable experience before the War came, bringing new developments
of this safeguard of health and life as well as of limbs. Even in 1911 a
Factory Inspector wrote:
“On visiting a large factory recently I was interested to find a rest
room in which there were four couches. Two of them were occupied by
girls who were sleeping soundly. I was informed that this room was
often used by girls not feeling well or tired, and that the renewed
vigour with which the workers returned to work after a few hours’ rest
soon made up for the loss of time.”[240]
In 1912 a large factory in Coventry, where hundreds of young girls were
employed, was reported on by Miss Whitlock. A nurse was employed by the
firm whose sole duty was to look after the health of the workers, and
she had a small surgery at which she attended to any slight injuries—of
which there were forty-nine on the day of this inspection. A doctor
called daily and could be consulted by the workers without charge.
Messrooms, where dinners could be cheaply obtained, and an open-air
swimming bath were provided. In a large surgical-dressings factory the
plan was adopted of having a social welfare secretary to care for the
health and welfare of the two to three hundred girls, and here a rest
room was part of the equipment. The cleanliness of the workrooms was
itself a lesson in hygiene. In the same year there were again examples
given by the Women Inspectors, showing the boundless room for growth of
general welfare work and of the more pressing safeguard of supervision
of girls’ labour by trained women superintendents. In a large printing
works in a small provincial town, where 120 women worked among 600 men,
an Inspector found no foreman and no women in charge. There had been a
complaint of behaviour to the Inspector, and she found the manager
anxious about the tone of his factory and ready to welcome her visit.
She urged the appointment of women overseers, and this was
promised.[241]
In the year 1909 a step of some consequence to the movement was taken in
the convening at Bournville, Birmingham, by Mr. Cadbury, of the first
general conference of social secretaries, welfare superintendents, and
manageresses, to consider the aims and results of their work.[242] At
this conference some very practical and helpful papers were read. By
invitation I spoke on the basis existing in the national standards laid
down in the Factory Acts, for the working out in individual factories of
the personal health and welfare of the workers, and I asked them to look
into and consider fatigue and its prevention. Discussion arose on the
means, legal and voluntary, for improving both the conditions in
factories and the physical and industrial fitness of the workers. There
was a marked gain in such meetings and discussions, leading as they did
to the clearing up of ideas, that at that stage were bound to be a
little vague, on the main objects of welfare superintendence and their
relationship to the production of wealth. The majority of welfare
supervisors present at the conference in 1909 would have been surprised
if they could have heard the high estimate of their calling to be
expressed in 1918 by Professor Urwick. “This is a skilled job,” he said,
“so skilled that it is beyond the scope of anyone who has not made a
careful study of the conditions of it ... it requires essentially
detachment as well as knowledge.” However high the estimate was to be,
there was certainly room throughout for ancillary welfare workers as
well, and these early conferences strengthened the professional spirit
in the calling. Partly from them and also from the interest shown by
leading employers came a new movement in the provincial Universities—
following an older one within the London University[243]—to provide some
training for such social workers by hygiene and social welfare courses
and diplomas. This growth led again, in 1917 and also in 1920, through
the war conditions of industry to conferences on training, officially
convened at the Home Office, between representatives of Universities,
employers, leading welfare managers, and the Factory Department.
Perusal of the pages, concerned with the increase of welfare work in the
experience of the Women Inspectors in the Annual Report for 1913,[244]
published but a few months before the great industrial upheaval of the
War, gives a strong impression of growth in the employers’ interest in
welfare, and of the vitality of a desire among an increasing number of
them to secure for employees much better conditions of work than can be
laid down in an Act of Parliament. The value of this growth lay not only
in the details of work done by the social secretary or superintendent in
organising medical, dental, or nursing facilities for care of the health
of the workers, methods of cleansing workrooms, organising messing
arrangements, bathing and washing conveniences, suitable protective
clothing, restful seating arrangements. Behind and above it all was the
possibility of making the “social helper most important to the workers
and a real help to the carrying out of the spirit of the Factory and
Workshop Act. An Inspector may remind an occupier that his factory must
be kept in a cleanly state, but unless there is some woman permanently
on the premises who will organise and look into the details of the
cleansing, and suggest contrivances for the purpose, it is seldom
properly done. Four firms visited in 1913 had arranged classes for their
work-people and ... for technical training ... most social workers had
the initiation of social clubs in their charge ... clubs for sports as
well as gardening.”[245]
In 1914 we passed from peaceful promotion of welfare to warfare, and a
new note had to be struck immediately. “How greatly,” said Miss Squire,
“the army of industrial workers need a commissariat department to cater
for them during their days of active service will perhaps be better
realised now that the public attention has been rivetted on the
victualling of our soldiers in camp and on the front. If ‘an army fights
on its stomach’ is it not also true that a factory works on it?” The
answer came promptly to this and to similar questions that had long been
asked, apparently vainly, by the Inspectors about the needs of
industrial workers. In an East End social restaurant, where the midday
meal was served daily to a hundred workers from a neighbouring factory,
the superintendent and her helpers had for years deplored the
insufficiency of the dinner purchased by the young girls under sixteen,
and they could scarcely refrain from supplying more than was paid for.
“One day soon after the War broke out there was such a run on meat-and-
vegetable dinners that the supply was not equal to the demand ... the
wages had that day been raised voluntarily by the occupier to the
proposed Trade Board rate; the effect was immediate and continued ... a
striking answer to those who cling to the theory that an increase in
wages is of no substantial value to a girl.”[246]
By the close of 1915 an entirely new position and outlook had been
opened for girls and women in industry. In demand for their labour, in
wages, in conditions, and in the possibilities of their output, the
situation had led to a “systematic introduction of hygienic safeguards
that Factory Inspectors had advocated for many years ... supervision of
women by women, provision of means of personal cleanliness, proper meal
and rest rooms and qualified nurses” in the factories. There was a “new
general awakening to the dependance of sufficient output on the welfare
of the human agent.”[247]
This awakening was strikingly expressed in the formation of the Welfare
Department by the Minister of Munitions, for promoting the means of such
welfare in controlled and national factories. This department had as its
first Director an employer experienced in the successful promotion of
industrial welfare experiments in his own factories, Mr. Seebohm
Rowntree. At his wish I supplied him with detailed surveys of the
munition factories, made by the Women Inspectors. Before the end of 1916
he was supplied with 1,396 surveys relating to the welfare conditions of
nearly 200,000 women and girls, classified according to the degree of
urgency for his attention: 31 per cent. of the factories were in the
first and best class, 49 per cent. in the second, and 20 per cent. in
the third class. In the second and third classes were placed factories
lacking in varying degrees and combinations, means for preparing and
taking food, cloakrooms and washing conveniences, first-aid or rest
rooms, seats, and suitable supervision. One must remember that in many
instances the workers travelled daily long distances with only defective
means of transport, and most were working twelve-hour (day and night)
shifts. Great progress was made during the year in so transforming the
conditions in many of the factories as to qualify them for advance to a
higher class. A great stimulus was given to supply of welfare
superintendents by the forming of a panel of likely persons and by
giving them access to intensive training. While mistakes were
unavoidably made in the rush to supply the need, employers being free to
make their own choice, a remarkable proportion of capable and a few
highly distinguished welfare administrators were put up by the movement.
Medical women, moreover, had, and made good use of, a new and important
channel for experience as medical officers of great national factories.
The supply of surveys and reports from the Factory Department to the
Welfare Department, Ministry of Munitions, continued, while co-operation
with dilution officers also developed until well on into 1917. One of
the Medical Inspectors of Factories, Dr. Collis, then succeeded Mr.
Rowntree in charge of the Welfare Department, and early in 1918 Miss
Squire, Deputy Principal Lady Inspector of Factories, passed into charge
of the Women’s Welfare in that Department. Thus a kind of fusion of the
emergency wartime department with the peacetime department for
industrial welfare preceded the end of the War and the rapid closing of
the munition factories that followed. The making of Welfare Orders by
the Secretary of State had, however, begun in October, 1917, under the
powers given by the Act of 1916.
In “The School Child” that Act was pleasantly described as a “little
Police Act,” by which “the Home Secretary obtained large powers to
compel the provisions of many measures for the welfare of the workers in
factories and workshops.” It was there also truly designated as “in
fact, a large extension of the Factory Acts,” dependent in some degree
on the reception given to it by the workers. The prompt issue of a
summary of the operative clause of the Act, in “School Child Leaflet No.
14,” is one of the many straws then floating about that one can gather
up now, showing that a new wind of the spirit was blowing in the
industrial affairs of the nation. As I said, however, at the Birmingham
Congress of the Royal Sanitary Institute in 1920:
“Only after the Great War was it generally realised how largely the
personal welfare and health of manual labourers rest on their own co-
operation in ... demand for, and use of all the new means placed by
development of science and advancing humanitarian and Christian ideals
at the disposal of industry, and how important it is to have trained
technical assistance in developing the full use of all these means in
each workplace.”
A skilled workman in a large factory, president of his union (a craft
union), and taking a leading part both on the works’ committee and the
district committee of the joint industrial council of his trade, said to
me in the summer of 1920 that he believed that the workers had it in
their power (if they could only see it), in co-operation with the
employers, to do no less than recreate their work and surroundings.
At the time of the passing of the “little Police Act,”[248] in 1916,
there was some apprehension amongst the few workers’ leaders who took
any notice of it that it might mean no more (at the worst) than some new
kind of efficiency engineering or possibly (less objectionably) a mere
revival of philanthropy by employers. Employers themselves appeared to
be too busy to take notice of the Act before it was passed, and it
quickly and quietly became law, the only amendments being such as to
strengthen the provision for initiative by the workers in working out
details.
The Act provided that, “where it appears to the Secretary of State that
the conditions and circumstances of employment or the nature of the
processes carried on in any factory or workshop are such as to require
special provision to be made at the factory or workshop for securing the
welfare of the workers or any class of workers employed therein in
relation to the matters to which this section applies, he may by order
require the occupier to make such reasonable provision therefor as may
be specified in the order, and if the occupier fails to comply with the
requirements of the order or any of them, the factory or workshop shall
be deemed not to be kept in conformity with the Factory Act, 1901.”
Meals, drinking water, protective clothing, ambulance and first-aid,
seats, facilities for washing, accommodation for clothing, and
supervision were the subjects particularly specified as covered by the
section, but power was given to the Secretary of State to extend it to
other matters, and rest rooms have since been added.[249]
“Orders may be made for a particular factory or workshop, or for
factories or workshops of any class or group or description.” The first
order, dated October 5, 1917, provided for simple welfare arrangements
for workers in tinplate factories, with their rough and heavy processes
in which women have been employed for many years.[250] The second order
of the same date provided for a wholesome supply of drinking water at
convenient points with suitable drinking vessels in all factories and
workshops in which twenty-five or more persons are employed. The third
order, dated October 12, 1917, was of great significance, providing in
detail for first-aid and ambulance arrangements in large groups of metal
factories, where the greatest number of accidents, fatal and non-fatal,
are reported (including blast furnaces, copper mills, iron mills,
foundries, and metal works). The same provisions were applied, in an
order of November 8, 1918, to sawmills and factories in which articles
of wood are manufactured, the next greatest accident producing group of
works. First-aid was, however, also required in various other classes of
works, for which general welfare orders were made; for example, works in
which bichromate of potassium is used in dyeing, March 22, 1918; oilcake
mills, July 21, 1919; laundries, April 23, 1920; gut scraping, July 28,
1920; gutting, salting, and packing herring in Norfolk and Suffolk,
September 9, 1920. By the beginning of March, 1921, fifteen orders had
been made, of which ten made various requirements for particular
industries. The interesting progress made in development of these
general welfare orders may be followed in the chapters on welfare in the
Annual Reports of the Chief Inspector from 1918 onwards.[251]
The Act further provided that “orders may be made contingent in respect
of particular requirements upon application being made by a specified
number or proportion of the workers concerned, and may prescribe the
manner in which the views of the workers are to be ascertained,” and may
“provide for the workers concerned being associated in the management of
the arrangements, accommodation, or other facilities for which provision
is made where a proportion of the cost is contributed by the workers;
but no contribution shall be required from the workers in any factory or
workshop, except for the purpose of providing additional or special
benefits which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, could not
reasonably be required to be provided by the employer alone, and unless
two-thirds at least of the workers affected in that factory or workshop,
on their views being obtained in the prescribed manner, assent.”
Under these latter provisions no order had been made before the close of
1921, but the way is clearly open for a new initiative by the workers,
and in many factories a share in management of welfare arrangements by
workers through works’ welfare committees had indeed begun before the
War. This share was further developed during the War and has blossomed
out in many new ways since 1918. In 1916, in a large national factory, I
found a workers’ welfare committee, elected on their own initiative,
fully developed with an income of £50 a week. The committee members were
nearly equally men and women, representing every branch of work, one
member representing the management. The funds were raised by agreed
deductions from wages, no other collections being allowed in the
factory. Regular subscriptions were made to local hospitals,
dispensaries, and to prisoner-of-war funds. Newspapers were provided
daily in the canteen and concerts arranged twice weekly. “Whatever we
want we can have,” said a member of the committee to me in describing
the activities of his committee.[252] In a printing works in 1918 a shop
committee, consisting of eleven members, two representing the employers
and nine the workers (four the women and five the men), looked after all
the welfare arrangements, including management of the canteen,
alterations in hours, and wages questions. When the Factory Inspector
found the five hours’ spell being exceeded, the alterations necessary in
arrangements of work were made by the shop committee. In a northern
tailoring factory employing many women there was, in 1917, and still
flourishing in 1921, a “Workers’ Trustees Council” on which workers of
over ten years’ standing in the factory served. Their special function
was to consider and report to the firm suggestions made by the workers,
and some of the most fundamental, with regard to hours, have been
carried into effect. In a large stationery factory—where a Whitley Works
Council dealt with employment, wages, and staff questions—a specially
elected committee dealt with the canteen and sports questions, and
special education and health officers with continuation classes and
sanitation and health questions; the whole welfare organisation was
known as the “Personal Service Department.” In a woollen factory with
representative committees and with well-developed canteen, rest, and
recreation rooms and other provisions for health and welfare, the works’
welfare magazine took the name _Service_, and its first editorial, May,
1919, said: “We want to prove to the world that the primary function of
industry is service.”
Examples could be multiplied from the experience of the Inspectorate of
various types of works’ committees with practical co-operation of
workers and management. These committees, building on a basis of
fairness in wages and other fundamentals, showed that a very good cement
had been found in joint work for welfare, for the building up of
peaceful industrial relationships, even before the formal development of
joint councils of the Whitley type had begun. It has been one of the
great satisfactions for the Inspectorate, when preparing by systematic
enquiry for welfare orders or for the making of welfare pamphlets, to
come upon long, modest, almost unnoticed, histories of welfare
institutions in old-fashioned mills and factories. There is, as Prince
Kropotkin pointed out in his “Fields, Factories, and Workshops,” a
survival all over England of smaller factories and industries helping to
keep alive an older social atmosphere than that of the “factory system.”
Something has certainly lived on in our country that partly accounts for
the definite experience, that representative works’ committees can
revive or replace the more personal relationships formerly existing
between management and workers in manufactures.
Returning for a moment to the legal and official provision for the
workers’ share in welfare activities, the sudden falling away of
employment in the summer of 1920 limited the developments in this
direction, so far as individual factories are concerned, for the
remainder of the period with which this book deals. In the larger matter
of consultation with joint councils for trades, when draft orders were
considered for welfare and for regulation of dangerous processes or
other matters, great progress has been made—_e.g._, in the furniture,
laundry, pottery, building, and silk trades. The Home Office steadily
proceeded with the making of welfare orders, which were generally
received with enthusiasm by workers and by many employers as instalments
of reforms long overdue; also with the helpful series of welfare
pamphlets[253] designed to spread a requisite knowledge of successful
experiments on which good hygienic and welfare arrangements can be built
up in factories and workshops.
At the onset of the almost catastrophic degree of unemployment in 1920—
at the moment when industry appeared to be in full flow of life and
energy—the interest of the community swung round inevitably from the
evolution of a better order within industry to the primary problem of
restoration of that ebbing life and energy. Never could the mutual
interdependence of aims for successful application of material and
labour in industry and for health and welfare of the human agent in
production be more conclusively shown. Nor could the social and economic
value of institutions making for harmonious co-operation between
organisers of industry and the manual workers, in constructive self-
government within the factory system, be more dramatically demonstrated.
It had been a splendid and cheering experience at the brief time of
activity, when the women and girl munitioners and substitutes for men
were being re-absorbed in their old occupations, in 1919 to 1920, to
learn from the Inspectors who were revisiting textile and clothing
factories, laundries, potteries, ropeworks, and other peacetime
industries of women, of the new demands for improved conditions that the
women were making and with good effect. It was the more cheering because
the women had behaved very well in the unselfish spirit in which they
had gone out from their interesting temporary occupations. They left new
welfare behind them for the returning men, and they spoke to the
Inspectors with pride and dignity of the new amenities growing up in
their own old workplaces. Large numbers of women munition workers had
been recruited from the old-time industries with unreformed conditions
of personal hygiene, and they rightly showed a marked reluctance to
accept the old bad standards. Alert young managers, back from the field
of war, quickly took the hint and moved their old directors into the new
and right direction. “We have seen the impossible undertaken and
accomplished, and we want to carry on here too,” was the keynote struck
by some of them. New standards had, of course, been tried and their
value proven in production for the nation; yet there was something
greater than the realisation by employers of the possibility of more
harmonious relations and the higher efficiency to be gained by better
conditions of work. There was a widened outlook and a new spirit of
comradeship for the workers in many young employers lately returned from
the War, and a readiness to put responsibility on to workers’
representatives. Managers would “speak with enthusiasm of the general
interest and communal responsibility that has resulted” from the
activities of representative works’ committees, and would praise the
“eminently practical” nature of their proposals.[254] In socially
backward, rough industries, where even elementary requirements of the
Factory Act had still to be forced on the attention of occupiers, the
Inspectors hoped for an awakening through the application to them of the
new stimulus of a welfare order. In the trades that were little
organised from the workers’ side enquiries began to come from individual
workers—a hopeful sign—as to when an order might be expected in their
particular trade.
The effect in some factories with old-established welfare institutions
of the introduction of representative works’ committees has been
remarkable in the advance of the workers in self-reliance and interest
in their work, and in initiative in developing better conditions. Most
striking in their activities are some of the works’ committees in
industries where the constitution of the committee has been approved by
the Joint Council for the trade. In one such factory the accomplished
welfare superintendent has been enrolled a member of the trade union.
She is secretary of the works’ committee, and the elections of the
committee are carried out under the care of the trade union secretary.
Here the careful supervision of the health and safety sub-committee of
the works’ committee is evident in the excellence of the fire drill and
other arrangements and the good, coloured “safety first” notices at the
machines. The note of authority that is apparent in the rules drawn up
by the committee reflects the representative basis of the government of
daily life in the factory. An extensive, well-chosen library is an
outstanding feature of the social arrangements.
The immense advantage for future control of many risks and
inconveniences, as well as promotion of constructive welfare work in
industry, that may be reaped from the vigilance of workers, practised in
methods of self-government, is so obvious after seeing some of their
earlier achievements that one can only marvel that it has taken so long
for the “captains of industry” to begin to make the discovery. The
position of influence over the minds of workers held in the old-time
craft industries by the “master” craftsman can, it appears, in a new
way, be regained in modern factories with their specialised production.
The whole organisation of great industry is necessarily so intricate and
complicated that with the added machinery of internal factory
government, by committees, a “master organiser” is certainly necessary
to the success of the undertaking. This will become increasingly clear
to all workers capable of entering into the meaning of their
surroundings, when their share in self-government grows and their
contact with the organiser becomes closer. Already eloquent tributes may
be heard from individual workers to the “wonderful” organising gifts of
the employer or manager where the boon of representation has been
conceded to them.
Notwithstanding all the wonderful discoveries and inventions multiplying
power to increase wealth that could have been turned to the social
welfare and happiness of the worker, the factory system of the
nineteenth century failed portentously on this social side. It failed
through its blind and too often barbarous neglect of the really great
part that can be played both in workmanship and in organisation by the
spiritually endowed human agent of production. Man, woman, young worker,
or child, with their varying needs and capacities, they were all alike
“hands.” Their moral claims to a secure share in the good things—the
wealth and the welfare—that their labour helped to buy for the whole
people were not the only things denied to them. They have only won
through to the possibilities of the new position that lies ahead (when
industry can be revived), through sufferings and trials that are
difficult now to imagine, but of the story of which no responsible
thinker or leader in the nation’s affairs should ever be allowed to
remain ignorant.
“In the struggle for life to which industrial undertakings are subject,”
said the Belgian Vandevelde many years ago, “the final victory is
reserved for those who know how to meet their rivals not only with the
most perfect machinery, but yet more with the best human material, the
most solid array of moral and intellectual forces.”
That was a warning that need not have fallen on deaf ears, even in an
avowedly competitive society, and that might have been understood by the
factory organisers of the nineteenth century. It is a new world that has
to be faced now, and although we should not forget that saying, we may
better dwell on the thought that harmony in industrial relationships
promises to be the natural outcome of associated human effort for the
sound, plentiful production that mankind so greatly needs and that may
minister to a reviving desire for fitness and beauty in the world.
APPENDIX I
DANGEROUS AND UNHEALTHY INDUSTRIES
REGULATIONS MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PROCESSES CERTIFIED AS
DANGEROUS UNDER SECTION 79, FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT, 1901.
┌─────────────────────────────┬───────────────┬──────────────┐
│ 1. │ 2. │ 3. │
│ _Date of_ │ _Class of │ _Kind of │
│ │ Manufacture, │ Risks._ │
│ │ Machinery, │ │
│ │Plant, Process │ │
│ │or Description │ │
│ │ of Manual │ │
│ │ Labour._ │ │
├──────────────┬──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│_Certificate._│_Regulations._│ „ │ „ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=1.= Feb. 24, │Dec. 19, 1921.│1. =Aerated │Accidents from│
│ 1921. │ │Water.=— │bursting │
│ │ │Manufacture of,│bottles. │
│ │ │and processes │Exposure to │
│ │ │incidental │wet. │
│ │ │thereto. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=2.= May 9, │ │2. =Arsenic.=— │Poisonous │
│ 1892. │ │Extraction and │dust. │
│ │ │use of. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=3.= Aug. 26, │Dec. 30, 1908.│[255]3. │Poisonous │
│ 1907. │ │=Benzine.=— │fumes and │
│ │ │Manufacture of │dust. │
│ │ │nitro and amido│ │
│ │ │derivatives of │ │
│ │ │and of │ │
│ │ │explosives with│ │
│ │ │dinitrobenzol │ │
│ │ │or │ │
│ │ │dinitrotoluol. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=4.= June 6, │June 26, 1908.│4. =Brass.=— │Injurious │
│ 1907. │ │Casting of, or │fumes. │
│ │ │any alloy of, │ │
│ │ │copper with │ │
│ │ │zinc. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=5.= Oct. 29, │ │5. │Injurious │
│ 1910. │ │=Briquettes.=— │dust. │
│ │ │Manufacture of │ │
│ │ │patent fuel │ │
│ │ │with addition │ │
│ │ │of pitch. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=6.= March 7, │ April 16, │6. =Bronzing= │Injurious │
│ 1911. │ 1912. │with dry │dust. │
│ │ │metallic │ │
│ │ │powders in │ │
│ │ │letterpress │ │
│ │ │printing, │ │
│ │ │lithographic │ │
│ │ │printing, and │ │
│ │ │coating metal │ │
│ │ │sheets. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=7.= Oct. 6, │ │7. =Buildings= │Accidents from│
│ 1921. │ │in course of │falls or │
│ │ │construction, │falling bodies│
│ │ │alteration, │or from │
│ │ │repair, or │machinery. │
│ │ │demolition. │Plumbism │
│ │ │ │(painters and │
│ │ │ │plumbers). │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=8.= April 24,│Nov. 28, 1921.│8. │Fire (highly │
│ 1914. │ │=Celluloid.=— │inflammable │
│ │ │Manufacture, │material). │
│ │ │manipulation, │ │
│ │ │and storage of.│ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=9.= Dec. 14, │ │[256]9. │Caustic │
│ 1920. │ │=Chemicals.=— │liquids in │
│ │ │Manufacture and│vats, etc. │
│ │ │processes │Poisonous │
│ │ │incidental │gases. │
│ │ │thereto carried│Injurious │
│ │ │on in “Chemical│dust. │
│ │ │Works” (as │Explosions and│
│ │ │defined in the │fire. │
│ │ │Schedule). │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=10.= June 27,│Aug. 15, 1913.│[256]10. │Injurious dust│
│ 1913. │ │=Chromate= and │and fumes. │
│ │ │Bichromate of │ │
│ │ │Potassium, │ │
│ │ │Sodium, │ │
│ │ │manufacture of.│ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=11.= │Dec. 21, 1911.│11. =Cotton │Humidity. │
│ │ │Cloth Weaving.=│High │
│ │ │ │temperatures. │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=12.= Sept. │Oct. 28, 1904.│12. =Docks, │Risks to life │
│ 30, 1902. │ │Wharves,= =and │and limb from │
│ │ │Quays=, loading│dangerous │
│ │ │and unloading │machinery and │
│ │ │at, and │appliances, │
│ │ │loading, │and ladders │
│ │ │unloading or │and corners, │
│ │ │coaling any │and lack of │
│ │ │ships in any │fencing for │
│ │ │dock, harbour, │dangerous │
│ │ │or canal. │hatchways, │
│ │ │ │etc. │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=13.= │ │13. │ │
│ │ │=Earthenware │ │
│ │ │and= =China.= │ │
│ │ │(See under │ │
│ │ │=Potteries=, │ │
│ │ │No. 32.) │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=14.= Aug. 3, │Nov. 24, 1903.│14. =Electric │Poisonous dust│
│ 1903. │ │Accumulators=, │and fumes │
│ │ │manufacture of.│(lead). │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=15.= Aug. 9, │Jan. 1, 1909. │15. │Danger to │
│ 1907. │ │=Electricity.=—│health or to │
│ │ │Generation, │life and limb │
│ │ │transformation,│from shock, or│
│ │ │distribution, │burns, or │
│ │ │and use of. │fire. │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=16.= Sept. │Dec. 22, 1908.│16. │Poisonous │
│ 21, 1908. │ │=Enamelling=, │dust. │
│ │ │vitreous, of │ │
│ │ │metals or │ │
│ │ │glass. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=17.= June 6, │Aug. 19, 1902.│17. =Felt │Fire and │
│ 1902. │ │Hats=, │explosions. │
│ │ │manufacture of,│ │
│ │ │where │ │
│ │ │inflammable │ │
│ │ │solvent is │ │
│ │ │used. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=18.= Sept. │June 23, 1903.│18. =File │Metallic lead │
│ 22, 1902. │ │Cutting= by │dust. │
│ │ │hand. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=19.= May 11, │Feb. 26, 1906.│19. =Flax and │Irritant dust,│
│ 1905. │ │Tow=, spinning │artificial │
│ │ │and weaving of.│humidification│
│ │ │ │and high │
│ │ │ │temperatures. │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=20.= Oct. 14,│Oct. 15, 1909.│20. =Grinding │Irritant dust │
│ 1908. │ │of= Metals and │(silica and │
│ │ │Racing of │gritty │
│ │ │Grindstones. │particles, │
│ │ │ │also steel and│
│ │ │ │iron powder). │
│ │ │ │Accidents. │
│ │ │ │Moisture. │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=21.= Jan. │Aug. 28, 1907.│21. =Hemp and │Vegetable │
│ 29, 1907. │ │Jute= spinning │dust. │
│ │ │and weaving. │Liability to │
│ │ │ │tetanus in │
│ │ │ │case of │
│ │ │ │lesions of the│
│ │ │ │skin. │
│ │ │ │High │
│ │ │ │temperature in│
│ │ │ │spinning and │
│ │ │ │humidity. │
│ │ │ │Cold and │
│ │ │ │draughts in │
│ │ │ │preparatory │
│ │ │ │process. │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=22.= Oct. │Dec 29, 1921. │22. =Hides and │Anthrax spores│
│ 15, 1920. │ │Skins.=[257]— │in the │
│ │ │Dry or dry- │material. │
│ │ │salted, │ │
│ │ │imported from │ │
│ │ │Africa │ │
│ │ │(including or │ │
│ │ │Asia (including│ │
│ │ │Japan and Malay│ │
│ │ │Archipelago), │ │
│ │ │handling of. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=23.= May 23,│Dec. 20, 1907.│23. =Horsehair │Anthrax spores│
│ 1907. │ │from= =China, │in the │
│ │ │Siberia,= =and │material. │
│ │ │Russia=, use │ │
│ │ │of. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=24.= Dec. 21,│Mar. 31, 1922.│24. =India- │Poisonous dust│
│ 1920. │ │rubber.=— │(lead). │
│ │ │Certain │Injury to │
│ │ │processes │health from │
│ │ │incidental to │volatile │
│ │ │the manufacture│vapour. │
│ │ │of, and of │Accident from │
│ │ │articles and │inflammable │
│ │ │goods made │vapour. │
│ │ │wholly or │ │
│ │ │partially of │ │
│ │ │india-rubber. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=25.= Sept. 3,│Aug. 23, 1921.│25. │Poisonous dust│
│ 1920. │ │=Lead=,[258] │and fumes │
│ │ │compounds of, │(lead │
│ │ │including │compounds). │
│ │ │carbonate, │ │
│ │ │sulphate, │ │
│ │ │nitrate, and │ │
│ │ │acetate of │ │
│ │ │lead, │ │
│ │ │manufacture of.│ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=26.= Dec. 13,│ Aug. 12, │26. │Poisonous dust│
│ 1910. │ 1911. │=Lead.=[258]— │and fumes lead│
│ │ │Smelting of │compounds). │
│ │ │materials │ │
│ │ │containing │ │
│ │ │manufacture of │ │
│ │ │red or orange │ │
│ │ │lead and of │ │
│ │ │flaked │ │
│ │ │litharge. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=27.= Aug. │ May 2, 1905. │27. │Accidents from│
│ 24, 1906. │ │=Locomotives │locomotives, │
│ │ │and= =Waggons=,│etc., in │
│ │ │use of, on │motion by │
│ │ │lines and │mechanical │
│ │ │sidings in or │power. │
│ │ │used in │ │
│ │ │connection with│ │
│ │ │premises under │ │
│ │ │the Factory │ │
│ │ │Acts. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=28.= June 2,│ │28. =Lucifer │Phosphorus │
│ 1892. │ │Matches=, │necrosis. │
│ │ │manufacture of.│ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=29.= Oct. │Nov. 7, 1904. │29. =Mules, │Accidents. │
│ 17, 1905. │ │Self-Acting=, │ │
│ │ │spinning by │ │
│ │ │means of. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=30.= Dec. 1,│Jan. 25, 1907.│30. =Paints and│Poisonous dust│
│ 1906. │ │Colours=, │(lead). │
│ │ │manufacture of.│ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=31.= Oct. │ │31. =Patent │ │
│ 29, 1910. │ │Fuel=, │ │
│ │ │manufacture of.│ │
│ │ │(See under │ │
│ │ │=Briquettes=, │ │
│ │ │No. 5.) │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=32.= Aug. │Jan. 2, 1913. │32. =Pottery.=—│Poisonous dust│
│ 25, 1911. │ │Manufacture or │(lead). │
│ │ │decoration of, │Silica and │
│ │ │or any process │other dust, │
│ │ │incidental │heat, and │
│ │ │thereto, and │humidity. │
│ │ │the making of │Heavy weights.│
│ │ │lithographic │ │
│ │ │transfers, │ │
│ │ │frits, or │ │
│ │ │glazes for use │ │
│ │ │in such │ │
│ │ │manufacture or │ │
│ │ │decorations or │ │
│ │ │processes. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=33.= Mar. │ April 26, │33. =Refractory│Silica dust. │
│ 22, 1918. │ 1919. │Materials.=— │ │
│ │ │Crushing, │ │
│ │ │grinding, │ │
│ │ │sieving, and │ │
│ │ │other processes│ │
│ │ │involving the │ │
│ │ │manipulation of│ │
│ │ │such materials.│ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=34.= Aug. 5,│April 4, 1914.│34. =Ships, │Accidents. │
│ 1913. │ │Construction= │ │
│ │ │=and Repair= │ │
│ │ │=of=, in │ │
│ │ │shipbuilding │ │
│ │ │yards. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=35.= Sept. │June 30, 1909.│35. =Tinning of│Poisonous │
│ 25, 1908. │ │Metal= =Hollow-│fumes (lead). │
│ │ │ware=, =Iron │ │
│ │ │Drums=, and │ │
│ │ │harness │ │
│ │ │furniture. │ │
│ │ │(Coating of │ │
│ │ │metal articles │ │
│ │ │with a mixture │ │
│ │ │of lead and tin│ │
│ │ │and lead │ │
│ │ │alone.) │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┴──────────────┤
│=36.= │ │36. =White Lead.= (See under =│
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┬──────────────┤
│=37.= June │Dec. 18, 1908.│37. =Wool, East│Anthrax spores│
│ 17, 1905. │ │Indian=, use │in the │
│ │ │of.[259] │material. │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=38.= June │Dec. 12, 1905.│38. =Wool- │Anthrax spores│
│ 17, 1905. │ │Sorting=, │in the │
│ │ │willeying, │material. │
│ │ │washing, │ │
│ │ │combing, and │ │
│ │ │carding, and of│ │
│ │ │goat hair, │ │
│ │ │camel hair, and│ │
│ │ │processes │ │
│ │ │incidental │ │
│ │ │thereto.[259] │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=39.= Aug. │ │39. │Accidents from│
│ 10, 1920. │ │=Woodworking │dangerous │
│ │ │Machinery=, use│machinery. │
│ │ │of. │Injurious │
│ │ │ │dust. │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤
│=40.= June 1,│Aug. 6, 1907. │40. =Yarn=, │Poisonous dust│
│ 1907. │ │heading of │(lead). │
│ │ │dyed, by means │ │
│ │ │of a lead │ │
│ │ │compound. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
└──────────────┴──────────────┴───────────────┴──────────────┘
┌─────────────────────────────┬───────────────┬──────────────┬───────────────┐
│ 1. │ 4. │ 5. │ 6. │
│ _Date of_ │ _Nature of │ _Chief │ _Remarks._ │
│ │Injuries to be │ Preventive │ │
│ │ Prevented._ │ Measures │ │
│ │ │Imposed by the│ │
│ │ │Regulations._ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┬──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│_Certificate._│_Regulations._│ „ │ „ │ „ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=1.= Feb. 24, │Dec. 19, 1921.│Injury to life │(_a_) Machines│First certified│
│ 1921. │ │and limb from │to be so │Sept., 1896. │
│ │ │fragments of │constructed, │Special rules │
│ │ │bursting │placed, and │dated Aug., │
│ │ │bottles. │fenced as to │1897, were │
│ │ │Injury to │prevent │superseded by │
│ │ │health from │accident from │these │
│ │ │wet. │bursting │Regulations, │
│ │ │ │bottles. │1921. │
│ │ │ │(_b_) Face and│ │
│ │ │ │eye guards, │ │
│ │ │ │hand and arm │ │
│ │ │ │guards, to be │ │
│ │ │ │supplied to │ │
│ │ │ │the workers │ │
│ │ │ │and worn by │ │
│ │ │ │them. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) │ │
│ │ │ │Waterproof │ │
│ │ │ │aprons, boots,│ │
│ │ │ │and clogs to │ │
│ │ │ │be supplied. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=2.= May 9, │ │Eczematous │_Note._—There │Formerly │
│ 1892. │ │eruptions. │are no │included in │
│ │ │Gastro- │regulations at│Special Rules │
│ │ │intestinal │present, but │for Paints and │
│ │ │symptoms. │under Factory │Colours, which │
│ │ │ │and Workshop │were revised in│
│ │ │ │Act, 1901, │1907 for Lead │
│ │ │ │Sects. 74 and │risks only. │
│ │ │ │75, mechanical│(See No. 30.) │
│ │ │ │ventilation │ │
│ │ │ │must be │ │
│ │ │ │provided to │ │
│ │ │ │prevent │ │
│ │ │ │inhalation of │ │
│ │ │ │injurious │ │
│ │ │ │dust, vapour, │ │
│ │ │ │etc., and │ │
│ │ │ │washing │ │
│ │ │ │conveniences │ │
│ │ │ │must be │ │
│ │ │ │provided; and │ │
│ │ │ │persons are │ │
│ │ │ │excluded from │ │
│ │ │ │workroom where│ │
│ │ │ │arsenic gives │ │
│ │ │ │rise to dust, │ │
│ │ │ │and provision │ │
│ │ │ │for meals must│ │
│ │ │ │be made │ │
│ │ │ │elsewhere. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=3.= Aug. 26, │Dec. 30, 1908.│Profound │(_a_) Removal │Special Rules, │
│ 1907. │ │changes in the │or prevention │1908, rendered │
│ │ │condition of │of fumes or │obsolete by │
│ │ │the blood. │dust. │Chemicals, No. │
│ │ │Muscular and │(_b_) │9. │
│ │ │nerve │Effective │ │
│ │ │affections; eye│ventilation. │ │
│ │ │affections. │(_c_) │ │
│ │ │ │Overalls, │ │
│ │ │ │gloves, clogs,│ │
│ │ │ │supplied to │ │
│ │ │ │workers. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Lavatories, │ │
│ │ │ │baths, and │ │
│ │ │ │prohibition of│ │
│ │ │ │meals in │ │
│ │ │ │workrooms. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) Medical │ │
│ │ │ │examination │ │
│ │ │ │and power of │ │
│ │ │ │suspension. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=4.= June 6, │June 26, 1908.│Brass casters’ │(_a_) │First certified│
│ 1907. │ │ague or fever. │Exclusion of │July 10, 1896. │
│ │ │ │female workers│Special Rules, │
│ │ │ │from casting │dated 1896, │
│ │ │ │shop. │were rendered │
│ │ │ │(_b_) Exhaust │obsolete by │
│ │ │ │ventilation │these │
│ │ │ │for removal of│Regulations, │
│ │ │ │fumes at │1908. │
│ │ │ │points of │ │
│ │ │ │origin. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Washing │ │
│ │ │ │accommodation.│ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=5.= Oct. 29, │ │Ulceration of │_Note._— │Draft │
│ 1910. │ │skin. │Precautions │Regulations │
│ │ │Epitheliomatous│voluntarily │withdrawn, │
│ │ │cancer. │adopted by │1913, after │
│ │ │Eye troubles. │employers, │Public Enquiry │
│ │ │ │_i.e._— │and on the │
│ │ │ │(_a_) │voluntary │
│ │ │ │Prevention of │adoption by │
│ │ │ │escape of dust│occupiers of │
│ │ │ │by boxing-in │precautions in │
│ │ │ │elevators. │Column 5. │
│ │ │ │(_b_) Exhaust │ │
│ │ │ │ventilation │ │
│ │ │ │for removal of│ │
│ │ │ │dust. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) │ │
│ │ │ │Protective │ │
│ │ │ │clothing; │ │
│ │ │ │goggles. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Cloakroom. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=6.= March 7, │ April 16, │Respiratory │(_a_) Exhaust │ │
│ 1911. │ 1912. │irritation. │ventilation │ │
│ │ │Gastric │and appliances│ │
│ │ │disturbance. │to prevent │ │
│ │ │ │escape of dust│ │
│ │ │ │into the air │ │
│ │ │ │of the room. │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) │ │
│ │ │ │Protective │ │
│ │ │ │clothing │ │
│ │ │ │supplied to │ │
│ │ │ │workers. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Washing │ │
│ │ │ │accommodation │ │
│ │ │ │and place for │ │
│ │ │ │outdoor │ │
│ │ │ │clothing. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=7.= Oct. 6, │ │Injury to life │(_a_) │In draft June, │
│ 1921. │ │or limb. │Provision and │1922. │
│ │ │Plumbism. │maintenance of│ │
│ │ │ │suitable │ │
│ │ │ │scaffolding of│ │
│ │ │ │sound │ │
│ │ │ │material. │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) │ │
│ │ │ │Efficient │ │
│ │ │ │lighting of │ │
│ │ │ │working places│ │
│ │ │ │and │ │
│ │ │ │approaches. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Special │ │
│ │ │ │safeguards for│ │
│ │ │ │working on │ │
│ │ │ │roofs. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Safeguards for│ │
│ │ │ │use of │ │
│ │ │ │hoisting │ │
│ │ │ │appliances, │ │
│ │ │ │cranes, etc. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) Fencing │ │
│ │ │ │of machinery │ │
│ │ │ │and safety │ │
│ │ │ │provisions for│ │
│ │ │ │boilers. │ │
│ │ │ │(_f_) │ │
│ │ │ │Provision for │ │
│ │ │ │painters and │ │
│ │ │ │plumbers of │ │
│ │ │ │washing │ │
│ │ │ │facilities; │ │
│ │ │ │prohibition of│ │
│ │ │ │taking meals │ │
│ │ │ │and of │ │
│ │ │ │depositing │ │
│ │ │ │clothing in │ │
│ │ │ │workshop; │ │
│ │ │ │moist method │ │
│ │ │ │to be adopted │ │
│ │ │ │for rubbing │ │
│ │ │ │down or │ │
│ │ │ │scraping │ │
│ │ │ │painted │ │
│ │ │ │surfaces │ │
│ │ │ │containing │ │
│ │ │ │lead. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=8.= April 24,│Nov. 28, 1921.│Injury to life │(_a_) │ │
│ 1914. │ │or health from │Limitation of │ │
│ │ │fire. │the amount of │ │
│ │ │ │material or of│ │
│ │ │ │finished │ │
│ │ │ │articles │ │
│ │ │ │allowed in │ │
│ │ │ │workrooms or │ │
│ │ │ │on the │ │
│ │ │ │premises. │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) Method │ │
│ │ │ │of storage │ │
│ │ │ │prescribed. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) │ │
│ │ │ │Precautions │ │
│ │ │ │respecting │ │
│ │ │ │lights, │ │
│ │ │ │stoves, │ │
│ │ │ │smoking, use │ │
│ │ │ │of sealing │ │
│ │ │ │wax. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) Means of│ │
│ │ │ │escape and of │ │
│ │ │ │extinguishing │ │
│ │ │ │fire. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) │ │
│ │ │ │Competent │ │
│ │ │ │person to │ │
│ │ │ │supervise and │ │
│ │ │ │enforce the │ │
│ │ │ │regulations. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=9.= Dec. 14, │ │Burns, etc., by│(_a_) Fencing │In draft June, │
│ 1920. │ │falling into │of vats and │1922. │
│ │ │vats, etc., of │gangways, etc.│First certified│
│ │ │acid. │(_b_) Adequate│April 24, 1892.│
│ │ │“Gassing.” │lighting. │Special Rules │
│ │ │Respiratory │(_c_) │to be │
│ │ │affections from│Breathing │superseded by │
│ │ │irritant dust. │apparatus, │these │
│ │ │Inflammation of│oxygen, etc., │Regulations. │
│ │ │eyes and other │for rescue in │ │
│ │ │eye injuries. │case of │ │
│ │ │Injuries due to│“gassing.” │ │
│ │ │explosions. │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Protective │ │
│ │ │ │clothing │ │
│ │ │ │supplied to │ │
│ │ │ │workers. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) Exhaust │ │
│ │ │ │ventilation │ │
│ │ │ │and prevention│ │
│ │ │ │of escape of │ │
│ │ │ │dust from │ │
│ │ │ │certain │ │
│ │ │ │machines. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=10.= June 27,│Aug. 15, 1913.│Peculiar │(_a_) │Special Rules, │
│ 1913. │ │lesions, │Exclusion of │1900, were │
│ │ │erosion of │persons under │superseded by │
│ │ │septum of the │18. │these │
│ │ │nose, and │(_b_) Removal │Regulations, │
│ │ │chronic │or prevention │1913, and these│
│ │ │ulceration of │of steam and │to be revoked │
│ │ │the skin. │dust. │by Chemical │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Lighting│Regulations. │
│ │ │ │and fencing of│(See No. 9.) │
│ │ │ │vats, etc. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Protective │ │
│ │ │ │clothing and │ │
│ │ │ │respirators │ │
│ │ │ │supplied. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) │ │
│ │ │ │Cloakroom, │ │
│ │ │ │lavatory, │ │
│ │ │ │baths, │ │
│ │ │ │provided. │ │
│ │ │ │(_f_) Medical │ │
│ │ │ │examination │ │
│ │ │ │and power of │ │
│ │ │ │suspension. │ │
│ │ │ │(_g_) First- │ │
│ │ │ │aid for │ │
│ │ │ │treatment of │ │
│ │ │ │small ulcers. │ │
│ │ │ │(_h_) Daily │ │
│ │ │ │cleaning │ │
│ │ │ │floors, │ │
│ │ │ │stairs, etc. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=11.= │Dec. 21, 1911.│Ill health and │(_a_) │These │
│ │ │discomfort. │Hygrometrical │Regulations │
│ │ │ │control. │were made under│
│ │ │ │(_b_) Humidity│the Cotton │
│ │ │ │tables and │Cloth Factories│
│ │ │ │temperature │Act, 1911. │
│ │ │ │limit. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Chemical│ │
│ │ │ │and volume │ │
│ │ │ │standard of │ │
│ │ │ │ventilation. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Purification │ │
│ │ │ │of water for │ │
│ │ │ │steam. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=12.= Sept. │Oct. 28, 1904.│Injury to life │(_a_) │ │
│ 30, 1902. │ │and limb by │Exclusion of │ │
│ │ │accident from │boys under 16 │ │
│ │ │machinery, etc.│under certain │ │
│ │ │Drowning, │conditions. │ │
│ │ │falls, etc. │(_b_) Fencing │ │
│ │ │ │of dangerous │ │
│ │ │ │parts, of │ │
│ │ │ │footways, │ │
│ │ │ │gearing, │ │
│ │ │ │motors, etc., │ │
│ │ │ │and │ │
│ │ │ │prohibition of│ │
│ │ │ │interferences │ │
│ │ │ │by │ │
│ │ │ │unauthorised │ │
│ │ │ │persons. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Lighting│ │
│ │ │ │of dangerous │ │
│ │ │ │places at │ │
│ │ │ │night. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Provision of │ │
│ │ │ │gangways; │ │
│ │ │ │slippery │ │
│ │ │ │stages to be │ │
│ │ │ │sanded. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) Testing │ │
│ │ │ │of chains, │ │
│ │ │ │gear, etc. │ │
│ │ │ │(_f_) │ │
│ │ │ │Provision for │ │
│ │ │ │rescue from │ │
│ │ │ │drowning. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=13.= │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=14.= Aug. 3, │Nov. 24, 1903.│Plumbism. │(_a_) │ │
│ 1903. │ │ │Exclusion of │ │
│ │ │ │young persons │ │
│ │ │ │under 18 and │ │
│ │ │ │women from │ │
│ │ │ │manipulation │ │
│ │ │ │of dry │ │
│ │ │ │compounds of │ │
│ │ │ │lead and from │ │
│ │ │ │pasting. │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) Medical │ │
│ │ │ │examination │ │
│ │ │ │and │ │
│ │ │ │suspension. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) │ │
│ │ │ │Prevention, or│ │
│ │ │ │removal by │ │
│ │ │ │exhaust │ │
│ │ │ │ventilation, │ │
│ │ │ │of dust and │ │
│ │ │ │fumes. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) General │ │
│ │ │ │ventilation │ │
│ │ │ │and ample │ │
│ │ │ │cubic space. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) │ │
│ │ │ │Protective │ │
│ │ │ │clothing and │ │
│ │ │ │cloakroom. │ │
│ │ │ │(_f_) Washing │ │
│ │ │ │facilities. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=15.= Aug. 9, │Jan. 1, 1909. │Deep and │(_a_) Highly │ │
│ 1907. │ │inflamed burns │technical │ │
│ │ │and destruction│safeguards for│ │
│ │ │of tissue from │construction, │ │
│ │ │continuous │installation, │ │
│ │ │currents. │protection and│ │
│ │ │Sudden arrests │working of │ │
│ │ │of heart’s │apparatus, │ │
│ │ │action or of │conductors, │ │
│ │ │respiration, │motors, │ │
│ │ │violent │switches, etc.│ │
│ │ │muscular │(_b_) │ │
│ │ │contraction │Provision for │ │
│ │ │chiefly from │earthing, │ │
│ │ │alternating │insulating │ │
│ │ │currents. │stands, │ │
│ │ │ │adequate │ │
│ │ │ │space. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) │ │
│ │ │ │Technical │ │
│ │ │ │qualifications│ │
│ │ │ │for operators,│ │
│ │ │ │avoidance of │ │
│ │ │ │solitary │ │
│ │ │ │working. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Instructions │ │
│ │ │ │for treatment │ │
│ │ │ │of the injured│ │
│ │ │ │to be affixed.│ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=16.= Sept. │Dec. 22, 1908.│Plumbism. │(_a_) │ │
│ 21, 1908. │ │ │Exclusion of │ │
│ │ │ │young persons │ │
│ │ │ │under 16 years│ │
│ │ │ │of age. │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) Periodic│ │
│ │ │ │medical │ │
│ │ │ │examination │ │
│ │ │ │with power of │ │
│ │ │ │suspension. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Ample │ │
│ │ │ │cubic space. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Efficient │ │
│ │ │ │lighting. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) Good │ │
│ │ │ │condition of │ │
│ │ │ │floors and │ │
│ │ │ │cleaning of │ │
│ │ │ │same. │ │
│ │ │ │(_f_) │ │
│ │ │ │Prevention of │ │
│ │ │ │or removal by │ │
│ │ │ │exhaust │ │
│ │ │ │ventilation of│ │
│ │ │ │dust, spray, │ │
│ │ │ │or fumes. │ │
│ │ │ │(_g_) Washing │ │
│ │ │ │facilities. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=17.= June 6, │Aug. 19, 1902.│Burns and │(_a_) │ │
│ 1902. │ │shock. │Ventilation of│ │
│ │ │ │proofing, and │ │
│ │ │ │stove and │ │
│ │ │ │drying rooms. │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) │ │
│ │ │ │Restriction on│ │
│ │ │ │the number of │ │
│ │ │ │wet spirit- │ │
│ │ │ │proofed hats │ │
│ │ │ │per cubic feet│ │
│ │ │ │of air space │ │
│ │ │ │in workroom. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Spirit- │ │
│ │ │ │proofed hats │ │
│ │ │ │to be opened │ │
│ │ │ │out singly and│ │
│ │ │ │exposed before│ │
│ │ │ │placing in │ │
│ │ │ │stoves. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=18.= Sept. │June 23, 1903.│Plumbism. │(_a_) Cubic │ │
│ 22, 1902. │ │ │space and │ │
│ │ │ │floor space │ │
│ │ │ │prescribed per│ │
│ │ │ │“stock.” │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) Flooring│ │
│ │ │ │to be │ │
│ │ │ │substantial, │ │
│ │ │ │washable, and │ │
│ │ │ │in good │ │
│ │ │ │repair. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Good │ │
│ │ │ │general │ │
│ │ │ │ventilation. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) Washing │ │
│ │ │ │facilities. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) │ │
│ │ │ │Protective │ │
│ │ │ │clothing to be│ │
│ │ │ │worn. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=19.= May 11, │Feb. 26, 1906.│Phthisis with │(_a_) │First certified│
│ 1905. │ │dyspnœa and │Maintenance of│Jan. 3, 1894. A│
│ │ │other │prescribed │Departmental │
│ │ │respiratory │standard of │Committee which│
│ │ │trouble. │purity of the │was appointed, │
│ │ │Circulatory and│air. │1911, to │
│ │ │cardiac │(_b_) Exhaust │consider the │
│ │ │oppression from│ventilation │amendment to │
│ │ │moist heat. │for removal of│these │
│ │ │Skin troubles, │dust. │Regulations │
│ │ │eczema, and │(_c_) │reported 1914, │
│ │ │folliculitis. │Hygrometrical │and their │
│ │ │ │control of │recommendations│
│ │ │ │humidity and │were issued as │
│ │ │ │temperature. │an informal │
│ │ │ │(_d_) Purity │draft of │
│ │ │ │of water for │amended │
│ │ │ │humidifying. │Regulation. │
│ │ │ │(_e_) │Further steps │
│ │ │ │Efficient │have not yet │
│ │ │ │splash-boards │been taken. │
│ │ │ │in wet │ │
│ │ │ │spinning. │ │
│ │ │ │(_f_) │ │
│ │ │ │Protective │ │
│ │ │ │clothing and │ │
│ │ │ │respirators to│ │
│ │ │ │be provided. │ │
│ │ │ │(_g_) Sound │ │
│ │ │ │condition of │ │
│ │ │ │floors and │ │
│ │ │ │drainage. │ │
│ │ │ │(_h_) │ │
│ │ │ │Cloakroom │ │
│ │ │ │accommodation.│ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=20.= Oct. 14,│Oct. 15, 1909.│Fibroid │(_a_) Removal │ │
│ 1908. │ │phthisis, │of dust by │ │
│ │ │asthma, and │exhaust │ │
│ │ │other │ventilation, │ │
│ │ │respiratory │etc. │ │
│ │ │troubles │(_b_) │ │
│ │ │(excessive │Separation of │ │
│ │ │mortality among│“racing” from │ │
│ │ │grinders). │other │ │
│ │ │Later stages, │processes. │ │
│ │ │frequently │(_c_) │ │
│ │ │tubercular. │Respirators to│ │
│ │ │Eye injuries │be worn while │ │
│ │ │from flying │“racing.” │ │
│ │ │motes and │(_d_) Special │ │
│ │ │sometimes │cleansing of │ │
│ │ │further │floors, belt │ │
│ │ │accidents from │races, and │ │
│ │ │dimmed vision. │walls, │ │
│ │ │ │ceilings, and │ │
│ │ │ │windows. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=21.= Jan. │Aug. 28, 1907.│Respiratory │(_a_) │ │
│ 29, 1907. │ │troubles. │Maintenance of│ │
│ │ │Tetanus likely │prescribed │ │
│ │ │to follow. │standard of │ │
│ │ │Accidents from │purity of the │ │
│ │ │machinery. │air. │ │
│ │ │Rheumatism │(_b_) Exhaust │ │
│ │ │common. │ventilation │ │
│ │ │ │for removal of│ │
│ │ │ │dust. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Minimum │ │
│ │ │ │temperature in│ │
│ │ │ │certain rooms.│ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Hygrometrical │ │
│ │ │ │control of │ │
│ │ │ │humidity and │ │
│ │ │ │high │ │
│ │ │ │temperature in│ │
│ │ │ │other rooms. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) │ │
│ │ │ │Respirators to│ │
│ │ │ │be provided in│ │
│ │ │ │certain │ │
│ │ │ │processes. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=22.= Oct. │Dec 29, 1921. │Anthrax │(_a_) First- │First certified│
│ 15, 1920. │ │infection │aid equipment.│June, 1903. The│
│ │ │through │(_b_) │Special Rules, │
│ │ │abrasion of the│Cautionary │1902, were │
│ │ │skin or by │notice │converted into │
│ │ │inhalation of │respecting │Regulations, │
│ │ │infected dust. │anthrax to be │1921. │
│ │ │ │affixed. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Washing │ │
│ │ │ │facilities. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Cloakroom and │ │
│ │ │ │messroom │ │
│ │ │ │accommodation.│ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) │ │
│ │ │ │Provision for │ │
│ │ │ │disinfection │ │
│ │ │ │or destruction│ │
│ │ │ │of wrappers in│ │
│ │ │ │which hides │ │
│ │ │ │and skins have│ │
│ │ │ │been packed │ │
│ │ │ │(in tanneries │ │
│ │ │ │only). │ │
│ │ │ │_Note._—The │ │
│ │ │ │Regulations │ │
│ │ │ │(_a_) and │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) above │ │
│ │ │ │apply to │ │
│ │ │ │docks, │ │
│ │ │ │warehouses, │ │
│ │ │ │and quays, as │ │
│ │ │ │well as │ │
│ │ │ │factories. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=23.= May 23,│Dec. 20, 1907.│Anthrax. │(_a_) │ │
│ 1907. │ │ │Exclusion of │ │
│ │ │ │persons under │ │
│ │ │ │18 from │ │
│ │ │ │employment on │ │
│ │ │ │material not │ │
│ │ │ │disinfected. │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) Register│ │
│ │ │ │of prescribed │ │
│ │ │ │particulars of│ │
│ │ │ │disinfection. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Material│ │
│ │ │ │not │ │
│ │ │ │disinfected to│ │
│ │ │ │be stored │ │
│ │ │ │separately, │ │
│ │ │ │and opened and│ │
│ │ │ │sorted │ │
│ │ │ │separately, │ │
│ │ │ │and in │ │
│ │ │ │connection │ │
│ │ │ │with exhaust │ │
│ │ │ │ventilation. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) All │ │
│ │ │ │manipulation │ │
│ │ │ │subsequent to │ │
│ │ │ │opening and │ │
│ │ │ │sorting │ │
│ │ │ │prohibited │ │
│ │ │ │until material│ │
│ │ │ │has been │ │
│ │ │ │disinfected. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) │ │
│ │ │ │Willowing and │ │
│ │ │ │dust- │ │
│ │ │ │extracting │ │
│ │ │ │machines to be│ │
│ │ │ │provided with │ │
│ │ │ │exhaust │ │
│ │ │ │ventilation. │ │
│ │ │ │(_f_) All dust│ │
│ │ │ │to be │ │
│ │ │ │intercepted │ │
│ │ │ │and burnt. │ │
│ │ │ │(_g_) │ │
│ │ │ │Protective │ │
│ │ │ │clothing to be│ │
│ │ │ │provided and │ │
│ │ │ │respirators. │ │
│ │ │ │(_h_) │ │
│ │ │ │Cloakroom, │ │
│ │ │ │meal rooms, │ │
│ │ │ │and washing │ │
│ │ │ │facilities. │ │
│ │ │ │(_i_) First- │ │
│ │ │ │aid │ │
│ │ │ │requisites. │ │
│ │ │ │(_j_) │ │
│ │ │ │Prohibition of│ │
│ │ │ │work on │ │
│ │ │ │material not │ │
│ │ │ │disinfected if│ │
│ │ │ │having open │ │
│ │ │ │cut or sore. │ │
│ │ │ │(_k_) │ │
│ │ │ │Cautionary │ │
│ │ │ │notice │ │
│ │ │ │respecting │ │
│ │ │ │anthrax to be │ │
│ │ │ │affixed. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=24.= Dec. 21,│Mar. 31, 1922.│Plumbism. │(_a_) │First certified│
│ 1920. │ │Peripheral │Exclusion of │Dec., 1896. │
│ │ │neuritis or │all young │Special rules │
│ │ │inflammatory │persons under │for vulcanising│
│ │ │condition of │18 and girls │india-rubber by│
│ │ │nerves due to │under 18 from │means of │
│ │ │effects of │any lead │bisulphide of │
│ │ │bisulphide of │process, and │carbon, 1897, │
│ │ │carbon. │of all young │converted into │
│ │ │ │persons and │these │
│ │ │ │women from │Regulations for│
│ │ │ │mixing or │India-rubber, │
│ │ │ │incorporating │1922. │
│ │ │ │dry compound │ │
│ │ │ │of lead with │ │
│ │ │ │rubber. │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) │ │
│ │ │ │Exclusion of │ │
│ │ │ │young persons │ │
│ │ │ │under 18 from │ │
│ │ │ │fume process, │ │
│ │ │ │and those │ │
│ │ │ │under 16 from │ │
│ │ │ │a room where │ │
│ │ │ │such process │ │
│ │ │ │is carried on.│ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) │ │
│ │ │ │Limitation of │ │
│ │ │ │employment in │ │
│ │ │ │fume process │ │
│ │ │ │of any person │ │
│ │ │ │for more than │ │
│ │ │ │5 hours a day │ │
│ │ │ │and more than │ │
│ │ │ │2½ hours at a │ │
│ │ │ │time without │ │
│ │ │ │at least 1 │ │
│ │ │ │hour’s │ │
│ │ │ │interval. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) Removal │ │
│ │ │ │of dust and │ │
│ │ │ │fumes by │ │
│ │ │ │exhaust │ │
│ │ │ │ventilation, │ │
│ │ │ │and prevention│ │
│ │ │ │of escape of │ │
│ │ │ │fumes from │ │
│ │ │ │vulcanising │ │
│ │ │ │machines and │ │
│ │ │ │troughs. (_e_)│ │
│ │ │ │Protective │ │
│ │ │ │clothing to be│ │
│ │ │ │provided and │ │
│ │ │ │worn. │ │
│ │ │ │(_f_) │ │
│ │ │ │Cloakroom and │ │
│ │ │ │messroom │ │
│ │ │ │accommodation.│ │
│ │ │ │(_g_) Washing │ │
│ │ │ │facilities. │ │
│ │ │ │(_h_) Periodic│ │
│ │ │ │medical │ │
│ │ │ │examination │ │
│ │ │ │and power of │ │
│ │ │ │suspension. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=25.= Sept. 3,│Aug. 23, 1921.│Plumbism. │(_a_) Methods │First certified│
│ 1920. │ │ │of controlling│as dangerous, │
│ │ │ │lead dust │May 9, 1892. │
│ │ │ │prescribed by │These │
│ │ │ │damping, by │Regulations │
│ │ │ │ventilation, │supersede the │
│ │ │ │by careful │Special Rules │
│ │ │ │handling of │for White Lead │
│ │ │ │the materials.│dated June, │
│ │ │ │(_b_) Exhaust │1899. │
│ │ │ │ventilation │ │
│ │ │ │for removing │ │
│ │ │ │fumes or means│ │
│ │ │ │of preventing │ │
│ │ │ │their escape │ │
│ │ │ │into workroom.│ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Periodic│ │
│ │ │ │medical │ │
│ │ │ │examination │ │
│ │ │ │and power of │ │
│ │ │ │suspension. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Protective │ │
│ │ │ │clothing │ │
│ │ │ │provided and │ │
│ │ │ │arrangements │ │
│ │ │ │for washing │ │
│ │ │ │same. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) │ │
│ │ │ │Respirators to│ │
│ │ │ │be supplied. │ │
│ │ │ │(_f_) │ │
│ │ │ │Cloakroom, │ │
│ │ │ │messroom, │ │
│ │ │ │washing │ │
│ │ │ │facilities. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=26.= Dec. 13,│ Aug. 12, │Plumbism. │(_a_) │ │
│ 1910. │ 1911. │ │Exclusion of │ │
│ │ │ │young persons │ │
│ │ │ │under 16 and │ │
│ │ │ │women from any│ │
│ │ │ │lead process. │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) │ │
│ │ │ │Suppression or│ │
│ │ │ │removal of │ │
│ │ │ │dust or fumes │ │
│ │ │ │by exhaust │ │
│ │ │ │ventilation, │ │
│ │ │ │damping, etc. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) │ │
│ │ │ │Provision of │ │
│ │ │ │protective │ │
│ │ │ │clothing and │ │
│ │ │ │respirators in│ │
│ │ │ │certain │ │
│ │ │ │processes. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) Periodic│ │
│ │ │ │medical │ │
│ │ │ │examination │ │
│ │ │ │with power of │ │
│ │ │ │suspension. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) │ │
│ │ │ │Exclusion of │ │
│ │ │ │persons from │ │
│ │ │ │furnaces until│ │
│ │ │ │ventilated. │ │
│ │ │ │(_f_) │ │
│ │ │ │Restriction of│ │
│ │ │ │duration of │ │
│ │ │ │work to 3 │ │
│ │ │ │hours in dry │ │
│ │ │ │flues or │ │
│ │ │ │condensing │ │
│ │ │ │chambers. │ │
│ │ │ │(_g_) │ │
│ │ │ │Provision of │ │
│ │ │ │mealroom, │ │
│ │ │ │clothing, and │ │
│ │ │ │overall │ │
│ │ │ │accommodation,│ │
│ │ │ │washing │ │
│ │ │ │facilities, │ │
│ │ │ │and baths. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=27.= Aug. │ May 2, 1905. │Injuries to │(_a_) │ │
│ 24, 1906. │ │life and limb. │Technical │ │
│ │ │ │provisions as │ │
│ │ │ │to position, │ │
│ │ │ │and use of │ │
│ │ │ │point rods, │ │
│ │ │ │signal wires, │ │
│ │ │ │condition and │ │
│ │ │ │use of rails, │ │
│ │ │ │supply of │ │
│ │ │ │coupling │ │
│ │ │ │poles, etc. │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) │ │
│ │ │ │Provisions │ │
│ │ │ │respecting │ │
│ │ │ │movements of │ │
│ │ │ │persons and of│ │
│ │ │ │locomotives │ │
│ │ │ │and waggons. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) │ │
│ │ │ │Efficient │ │
│ │ │ │lighting after│ │
│ │ │ │dark. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Exclusion of │ │
│ │ │ │young persons │ │
│ │ │ │under 18 from │ │
│ │ │ │employment on │ │
│ │ │ │certain │ │
│ │ │ │capstans and │ │
│ │ │ │as locomotive │ │
│ │ │ │drivers, or as│ │
│ │ │ │a shunter. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) │ │
│ │ │ │Protection of │ │
│ │ │ │water gauges │ │
│ │ │ │on boilers │ │
│ │ │ │whether on │ │
│ │ │ │locomotives or│ │
│ │ │ │stationary. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=28.= June 2,│ │_Note._—The │Special Rules,│ │
│ 1892. │ │White │March 31, │ │
│ │ │Phosphorus │1900, now │ │
│ │ │Prohibition │obsolete, as │ │
│ │ │Act, 1908, │white │ │
│ │ │forbids the use│phosphorus is │ │
│ │ │of white │no longer │ │
│ │ │phosphorus in │allowed in the│ │
│ │ │the manufacture│manufacture. │ │
│ │ │of matches and │ │ │
│ │ │also the sale │ │ │
│ │ │of matches made│ │ │
│ │ │with the same. │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=29.= Oct. │Nov. 7, 1904. │Injuries to │(_a_) Special │ │
│ 17, 1905. │ │life and limb │fencing of │ │
│ │ │from machines │machines and │ │
│ │ │in motion. │accessory │ │
│ │ │ │gearing. │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) Duty │ │
│ │ │ │laid on │ │
│ │ │ │“minder” to │ │
│ │ │ │ensure that no│ │
│ │ │ │child cleans │ │
│ │ │ │any part of │ │
│ │ │ │the mule in │ │
│ │ │ │motion; that │ │
│ │ │ │no woman, │ │
│ │ │ │young person, │ │
│ │ │ │or child works│ │
│ │ │ │between the │ │
│ │ │ │fixed and │ │
│ │ │ │traversing │ │
│ │ │ │parts of the │ │
│ │ │ │mule; and that│ │
│ │ │ │no person is │ │
│ │ │ │between those │ │
│ │ │ │parts unless │ │
│ │ │ │the moving │ │
│ │ │ │part is │ │
│ │ │ │stopped on the│ │
│ │ │ │outward run. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) “Minder”│ │
│ │ │ │responsible │ │
│ │ │ │for the │ │
│ │ │ │starting of │ │
│ │ │ │the mule. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=30.= Dec. 1,│Jan. 25, 1907.│Plumbism. │(_a_) │First certified│
│ 1906. │ │ │Exclusion of │1892. │
│ │ │ │young persons │Special Rules, │
│ │ │ │and women. │1894, │
│ │ │ │(_b_) Periodic│superseded by │
│ │ │ │medical │these │
│ │ │ │examination, │Regulations. │
│ │ │ │with power of │ │
│ │ │ │suspension. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Exhaust │ │
│ │ │ │ventilation to│ │
│ │ │ │remove dust. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Protective │ │
│ │ │ │clothing │ │
│ │ │ │supplied. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) │ │
│ │ │ │Cloakroom, │ │
│ │ │ │messroom, │ │
│ │ │ │washing │ │
│ │ │ │facilities. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=31.= Oct. │ │ │ │ │
│ 29, 1910. │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=32.= Aug. │Jan. 2, 1913. │Plumbism. │(_a_) │Earthenware and│
│ 25, 1911. │ │Phthisis or │Exclusion of │china │
│ │ │other │women, young │manufacturing. │
│ │ │respiratory │persons, and │First certified│
│ │ │disease or │children from │Dec. 24, 1892. │
│ │ │injury to │certain │Special Rules │
│ │ │health from │processes in │were │
│ │ │inhalation of │the │established, │
│ │ │silica or other│preparation of│1894, amended │
│ │ │dust. │lead glaze, │in 1898, and │
│ │ │Injury to │etc., and from│again in 1903; │
│ │ │health from │cleaning in │after │
│ │ │excessive heat │dipping house,│arbitration │
│ │ │or humidity. │and as regards│these Rules │
│ │ │Strain from │a young person│were in turn │
│ │ │lifting and │and child from│superseded by │
│ │ │carrying │employment as │the present │
│ │ │weights. │a dipper. │Regulations, │
│ │ │ │(_b_) │1913. │
│ │ │ │Exclusion of │ │
│ │ │ │women, young │ │
│ │ │ │persons and │ │
│ │ │ │children from │ │
│ │ │ │certain heavy │ │
│ │ │ │work and work │ │
│ │ │ │involving │ │
│ │ │ │strain without│ │
│ │ │ │a certificate │ │
│ │ │ │of “permission│ │
│ │ │ │to work”; and │ │
│ │ │ │total │ │
│ │ │ │exclusion of │ │
│ │ │ │young persons │ │
│ │ │ │and children │ │
│ │ │ │from │ │
│ │ │ │employment in │ │
│ │ │ │wedging of │ │
│ │ │ │clay, and of │ │
│ │ │ │females from │ │
│ │ │ │carrying │ │
│ │ │ │saggars full │ │
│ │ │ │of ware. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Periodic│ │
│ │ │ │medical │ │
│ │ │ │examination │ │
│ │ │ │with power of │ │
│ │ │ │suspension. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Protective │ │
│ │ │ │clothing to be│ │
│ │ │ │supplied, │ │
│ │ │ │washed, │ │
│ │ │ │repaired, and │ │
│ │ │ │kept in proper│ │
│ │ │ │custody. │ │
│ │ │ │Respirators to│ │
│ │ │ │be supplied in│ │
│ │ │ │certain │ │
│ │ │ │processes. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) Washing │ │
│ │ │ │facilities, │ │
│ │ │ │cloakroom, and│ │
│ │ │ │mealroom to be│ │
│ │ │ │provided. │ │
│ │ │ │(_f_) Milk or │ │
│ │ │ │cocoa to be │ │
│ │ │ │provided for │ │
│ │ │ │all women and │ │
│ │ │ │young persons │ │
│ │ │ │if working │ │
│ │ │ │before 9 a.m. │ │
│ │ │ │in certain │ │
│ │ │ │processes. │ │
│ │ │ │(_g_) Exhaust │ │
│ │ │ │ventilation │ │
│ │ │ │for all │ │
│ │ │ │processes │ │
│ │ │ │giving rise to│ │
│ │ │ │dust (lead or │ │
│ │ │ │flint, etc.), │ │
│ │ │ │and │ │
│ │ │ │ventilation of│ │
│ │ │ │all rooms and │ │
│ │ │ │of drying │ │
│ │ │ │stoves. │ │
│ │ │ │(_h_) Means │ │
│ │ │ │for preventing│ │
│ │ │ │excessive heat│ │
│ │ │ │and humidity │ │
│ │ │ │in workrooms │ │
│ │ │ │and in ovens. │ │
│ │ │ │(_i_) Special │ │
│ │ │ │means for │ │
│ │ │ │cleaning │ │
│ │ │ │floors, │ │
│ │ │ │benches, │ │
│ │ │ │boards, etc., │ │
│ │ │ │where lead │ │
│ │ │ │glaze is used.│ │
│ │ │ │(_j_) Special │ │
│ │ │ │precautions as│ │
│ │ │ │regards lead │ │
│ │ │ │dust and │ │
│ │ │ │splashing of │ │
│ │ │ │lead glaze in │ │
│ │ │ │majolica │ │
│ │ │ │painting, │ │
│ │ │ │aerographing, │ │
│ │ │ │and │ │
│ │ │ │lithographic │ │
│ │ │ │transfers. │ │
│ │ │ │(_k_) │ │
│ │ │ │Limitation of │ │
│ │ │ │hours of men │ │
│ │ │ │as well as │ │
│ │ │ │women in │ │
│ │ │ │dipping and │ │
│ │ │ │some other │ │
│ │ │ │lead processes│ │
│ │ │ │to 48 hours │ │
│ │ │ │per week. │ │
│ │ │ │Intervals │ │
│ │ │ │prescribed in │ │
│ │ │ │certain lead │ │
│ │ │ │processes of ½│ │
│ │ │ │hour every 4 │ │
│ │ │ │hours or 4¾ │ │
│ │ │ │hours for │ │
│ │ │ │every person. │ │
│ │ │ │(_l_) Power │ │
│ │ │ │given to │ │
│ │ │ │inspector to │ │
│ │ │ │take samples │ │
│ │ │ │of any │ │
│ │ │ │material for │ │
│ │ │ │analysis. │ │
│ │ │ │(_m_) Works │ │
│ │ │ │Inspector to │ │
│ │ │ │supervise │ │
│ │ │ │observance of │ │
│ │ │ │regulations. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=33.= Mar. │ April 26, │Injury to lungs│(_a_) │ │
│ 22, 1918. │ 1919. │from the │Prescribed │ │
│ │ │inhalation of │methods of │ │
│ │ │silica dust. │controlling │ │
│ │ │Tuberculosis. │and removing │ │
│ │ │Silicosis. │dust by │ │
│ │ │ │exhaust │ │
│ │ │ │ventilation, │ │
│ │ │ │damping, etc.,│ │
│ │ │ │and by │ │
│ │ │ │prohibition of│ │
│ │ │ │certain │ │
│ │ │ │methods of │ │
│ │ │ │work. │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) │ │
│ │ │ │Provision of │ │
│ │ │ │respirators. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=34.= Aug. 5,│April 4, 1914.│Injury to life │(_a_) │ │
│ 1913. │ │and limb from │Sufficient │ │
│ │ │falls and │supply of good│ │
│ │ │falling bodies.│materials for │ │
│ │ │ │stages. │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) │ │
│ │ │ │Construction │ │
│ │ │ │of stages to │ │
│ │ │ │be of sound │ │
│ │ │ │material, │ │
│ │ │ │secure, and │ │
│ │ │ │erected by │ │
│ │ │ │competent │ │
│ │ │ │persons. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Gangways│ │
│ │ │ │to be fenced, │ │
│ │ │ │also openings │ │
│ │ │ │in decks to be│ │
│ │ │ │provided with │ │
│ │ │ │covers. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) Adequate│ │
│ │ │ │lighting while│ │
│ │ │ │work is in │ │
│ │ │ │progress. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) │ │
│ │ │ │Ambulance and │ │
│ │ │ │first-aid │ │
│ │ │ │provision. │ │
│ │ │ │(_f_) │ │
│ │ │ │Competent │ │
│ │ │ │person to │ │
│ │ │ │supervise and │ │
│ │ │ │enforce │ │
│ │ │ │observance of │ │
│ │ │ │regulations. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=35.= Sept. │June 30, 1909.│Plumbism. │(_a_) │First certified│
│ 25, 1908. │ │ │Exclusion of │Jan. 1894. │
│ │ │ │persons under │Special Rules │
│ │ │ │16 from │superseded by │
│ │ │ │tinning. │these │
│ │ │ │(_b_) Exhaust │Regulations, │
│ │ │ │ventilation │1909. │
│ │ │ │for removal of│ │
│ │ │ │dust and fumes│ │
│ │ │ │over dipping │ │
│ │ │ │and wiping, │ │
│ │ │ │and over │ │
│ │ │ │skimmings │ │
│ │ │ │until their │ │
│ │ │ │removal in a │ │
│ │ │ │covered │ │
│ │ │ │receptacle. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Removal │ │
│ │ │ │of dust and │ │
│ │ │ │refuse from │ │
│ │ │ │workrooms. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Protective │ │
│ │ │ │clothing and │ │
│ │ │ │cloakroom for │ │
│ │ │ │women. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) Meal- │ │
│ │ │ │room and │ │
│ │ │ │washing │ │
│ │ │ │accommodation.│ │
│ │ │ │(_f_) Periodic│ │
│ │ │ │medical │ │
│ │ │ │examination │ │
│ │ │ │with power of │ │
│ │ │ │suspension. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┴───────────────┴──────────────┴───────────────┤
│=36.= │ Lead Compounds=, No. 25.) │
├──────────────┼──────────────┬───────────────┬──────────────┬───────────────┤
│=37.= June │Dec. 18, 1908.│Anthrax. │(_a_) Dust- │ │
│ 17, 1905. │ │ │extracting │ │
│ │ │ │machines to be│ │
│ │ │ │covered over │ │
│ │ │ │and cover │ │
│ │ │ │connected with│ │
│ │ │ │exhaust fan so│ │
│ │ │ │as to │ │
│ │ │ │discharge dust│ │
│ │ │ │into a furnace│ │
│ │ │ │or │ │
│ │ │ │intercepting │ │
│ │ │ │chamber. │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) │ │
│ │ │ │Protective │ │
│ │ │ │clothing and │ │
│ │ │ │respirators to│ │
│ │ │ │be supplied │ │
│ │ │ │for persons │ │
│ │ │ │who collect │ │
│ │ │ │and remove the│ │
│ │ │ │dust. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=38.= June │Dec. 12, 1905.│Anthrax. │(_a_) │ │
│ 17, 1905. │ │ │Scheduled wool│ │
│ │ │ │or hair to be │ │
│ │ │ │opened by │ │
│ │ │ │skilled men │ │
│ │ │ │only, and to │ │
│ │ │ │be steeped in │ │
│ │ │ │water or │ │
│ │ │ │alternatively │ │
│ │ │ │opened over a │ │
│ │ │ │screen with an│ │
│ │ │ │exhaust │ │
│ │ │ │according to │ │
│ │ │ │the Schedule. │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) Sorting │ │
│ │ │ │boards must be│ │
│ │ │ │as prescribed │ │
│ │ │ │and also │ │
│ │ │ │willowing │ │
│ │ │ │machines. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Storage │ │
│ │ │ │of wool or │ │
│ │ │ │hair │ │
│ │ │ │prohibited in │ │
│ │ │ │sorting and │ │
│ │ │ │willeying │ │
│ │ │ │room. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Provision for │ │
│ │ │ │collection and│ │
│ │ │ │removal of │ │
│ │ │ │dust and │ │
│ │ │ │refuse. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) Floors │ │
│ │ │ │to be │ │
│ │ │ │sprinkled and │ │
│ │ │ │swept daily. │ │
│ │ │ │(_f_) │ │
│ │ │ │Protective │ │
│ │ │ │clothing │ │
│ │ │ │supplied and │ │
│ │ │ │not removed │ │
│ │ │ │unless │ │
│ │ │ │disinfected or│ │
│ │ │ │boiled. │ │
│ │ │ │(_g_) Washing │ │
│ │ │ │and mealroom │ │
│ │ │ │accommodation.│ │
│ │ │ │(_h_) First- │ │
│ │ │ │aid requisites│ │
│ │ │ │duty laid on │ │
│ │ │ │workers to │ │
│ │ │ │report any │ │
│ │ │ │open sore or │ │
│ │ │ │cut. │ │
│ │ │ │(_i_) Power of│ │
│ │ │ │inspectors to │ │
│ │ │ │take samples │ │
│ │ │ │of material. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=39.= Aug. │ │Injury to life │(_a_) │In draft June, │
│ 10, 1920. │ │and limb. │Provision of │1922. │
│ │ │Injury to │efficient │ │
│ │ │health— │stopping and │ │
│ │ │respiratory │starting gear │ │
│ │ │troubles. │on every │ │
│ │ │ │woodworking │ │
│ │ │ │machine. │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) Special │ │
│ │ │ │fencing of │ │
│ │ │ │machinery, │ │
│ │ │ │particularly │ │
│ │ │ │circular saws │ │
│ │ │ │and planing │ │
│ │ │ │machines. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Spacing │ │
│ │ │ │of machines, │ │
│ │ │ │and │ │
│ │ │ │maintenance of│ │
│ │ │ │surrounding │ │
│ │ │ │floors in good│ │
│ │ │ │condition and │ │
│ │ │ │free from │ │
│ │ │ │obstruction. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) Adequate│ │
│ │ │ │lighting, both│ │
│ │ │ │daylight and │ │
│ │ │ │artificial │ │
│ │ │ │light. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) │ │
│ │ │ │Artificial │ │
│ │ │ │warming of │ │
│ │ │ │workrooms in │ │
│ │ │ │cold weather. │ │
├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│=40.= June 1,│Aug. 6, 1907. │Plumbism. │(_a_) │ │
│ 1907. │ │ │Exclusion of │ │
│ │ │ │young persons │ │
│ │ │ │under 16. │ │
│ │ │ │(_b_) Exhaust │ │
│ │ │ │ventilation │ │
│ │ │ │for removal of│ │
│ │ │ │dust draught │ │
│ │ │ │to be tested │ │
│ │ │ │and recorded │ │
│ │ │ │quarterly. │ │
│ │ │ │(_c_) Periodic│ │
│ │ │ │medical │ │
│ │ │ │examination │ │
│ │ │ │with power of │ │
│ │ │ │suspension. │ │
│ │ │ │(_d_) │ │
│ │ │ │Protective │ │
│ │ │ │clothing │ │
│ │ │ │supplied. │ │
│ │ │ │(_e_) │ │
│ │ │ │Cloakroom and │ │
│ │ │ │mealroom, if │ │
│ │ │ │required in │ │
│ │ │ │writing by │ │
│ │ │ │chief │ │
│ │ │ │inspector. │ │
│ │ │ │(_f_) Washing │ │
│ │ │ │accommodation.│ │
└──────────────┴──────────────┴───────────────┴──────────────┴───────────────┘
APPENDIX II
TABLE OF REPORTED CASES OF INDUSTRIAL POISONING AND ANTHRAX (SECTION 73
OF THE FACTORY ACT, 1901).
(_Small figures at right-hand corner of larger figures indicate fatal
cases, included in totals_).
┌────────────────┬────────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┐
│ │ 1921 │ 1920 │ 1919 │ 1918 │
│ │ │ │ │ │
├────────────────┼────────┬───────┼────────┬────┼────────┬────┼────────┬────┤
│ „ │ M. │ F. │ M. │ F. │ M. │ F. │ M. │ F. │
├────────────────┼────────┼───────┼────────┼────┼────────┼────┼────────┼────┤
│LEAD │194^{21}│ 36^2│222^{20}│21^3│187^{26}│ 20│124^{11}│ 20│
│ POISONING[260]│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Tinning of │ │ 1│ │ 2│ │ 2│ 1│ 1│
│ metals │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│White lead │ 13^1│ │ 17│ │ 10│ │ │ │
│China and │ 21^9│ 13^2│ 16^{11}│ 8^2│ 13^8│ 8│ 5^1│ 6│
│ earthenware │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Litho-transfers │ │ 1│ │ 1│ │ │ │ │
│Vitreous │ 7│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ │ │ │
│ enamelling │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Coach │ 14^1│ 6│ 12│ 1│ 10^3│ 1│ 12^3│ │
│ painting[261] │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Paints used in │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ other │ 12│ │ 7^1│ 3│ 7^3│ 2│ 12│ 3│
│ industries │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Other industries│ 20^2│10[262]│ 32^2│ │ 24^1│ 1│ 19^1│ 4│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│MERCURY │ │ │ 4│ 1│ 5│ 2│ 8│ 1│
│ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│PHOSPHORUS │ │ │ │ │ 1│ │ 3│ │
│ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ARSENIC │ 1│ │ 3│ │ 4│ │ 3^1│ │
│ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ANTHRAX │ 21^5│ 4^1│ 42^{10}│ 6^1│ 46^6│11^3│ 46^5│26^3│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│TOXIC JAUNDICE │ 1^1│ │ 6^3│ │ 2^2│ 1^1│ 7^2│27^8│
└────────────────┴────────┴───────┴────────┴────┴────────┴────┴────────┴────┘
┌────────────────┬─────────────────┬─────────────────┬───────────┐
│ │ 1917 │ 1916 │ 1915 │
│ │ │ │ │
├────────────────┼────────┬────────┼────────┬────────┼────────┬──┤
│ „ │ M. │ F. │ M. │ F. │ M. │F.│
├────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼──┤
│LEAD │272^{19}│ 45^2│318^{20}│ 30^1│356^{21}│25│
│ POISONING[260]│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Tinning of │ 2│ │ 3│ 1│ 2│ 1│
│ metals │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│White lead │ 15│ 2│ 16^1│ 2│ 36│ 4│
│China and │ 8^5│ 7^2│ 15^6│ 8^1│ 13^5│13│
│ earthenware │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Litho-transfers │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Vitreous │ 1│ │ 5│ │ 5^1│ │
│ enamelling │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Coach │ 20^2│ 1│ 33│ │ 39^5│ │
│ painting[261] │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Paints used in │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ other │ 17^1│ 3│ 18│ 2│ 16^2│ │
│ industries │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Other industries│ 57^4│ 19[263]│ 50^3│ 11│ 47^1│ 7│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│MERCURY │ 6│ 11│ 11│ 7│ 6│ │
│ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│PHOSPHORUS │ 3│ │ 2│ │ 3^1│ │
│ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ARSENIC │ 0^5│ │ │ │ 3│ │
│ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ANTHRAX │ 71^{11}│ 22^1│ 77^{14}│ 28^2│ 45^7│ 5│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│TOXIC JAUNDICE │ 45^2│145^{42}│ 84^{23}│122^{34}│ │ │
└────────────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴──┘
┌────────────────┬────────────────┬─────────────┬────────────────┐
│ │ _Average_ │ _Average_ │ _Average_ │
│ │ 1912–14 │ 1909–11 │ 1906–08 │
├────────────────┼────────┬───────┼────────┬────┼────────┬───────┤
│ „ │ M. │ F. │ M. │ F. │ M. │ F. │
├────────────────┼────────┼───────┼────────┼────┼────────┼───────┤
│LEAD │468^{32}│ 55^1│512^{32}│63^3│524^{28}│ 95^2│
│ POISONING[260]│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Tinning of │ 10│ 1│ 13│ 4│ 10│ 8│
│ metals │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│White lead │ 24^1│ 3│ 34^1│ 2│ 83^3│ 3│
│China and │ 33^10│ 23^1│ 38^4│38^3│ 52^6│ 57^2│
│ earthenware │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Litho-transfers │ 1│ │ 1│ 1│ 5│ 1│
│Vitreous │ 8│ │ 12│ 1│ 5│ 1│
│ enamelling │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Coach │ 70^4│ 1│ 89^6│ │ 74^4│ 1│
│ painting[261] │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Paints used in │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ other │ 42^2│ 4│ 45^1│ 4│ 39^2│ 5│
│ industries │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Other industries│ 63^2│14[264]│ 56^3│ 8│ 57^3│10[265]│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│MERCURY │ 13│ 1│ 10│ │ 5│ 2│
│ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│PHOSPHORUS │ │ │ 1│ │ │ │
│ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ARSENIC │ 4│ │ 5│ 2│ 11^1│ 1│
│ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ANTHRAX │ 50^6│ 7│ 48^9│ 9^2│ 44^{11}│ 13^3│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│TOXIC JAUNDICE │ │ │ │ │ │ │
└────────────────┴────────┴───────┴────────┴────┴────────┴───────┘
┌────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┐
│ │ _Average_ │ 1900 │
│ │ 1903–05 │ │
├────────────────┼────────┬─────┼────────┬─────┤
│ „ │ M. │ F. │ M. │ F. │
├────────────────┼────────┼─────┼────────┼─────┤
│LEAD │501^{22}│100^1│884^{33}│174^5│
│ POISONING[260]│ │ │ │ │
│Tinning of │ 9│ 4│ 2│ 3│
│ metals │ │ │ │ │
│White lead │ 100^1│ 5^1│ 325^5│ 53^1│
│China and │ 39^3│ 56│ 95^4│105^4│
│ earthenware │ │ │ │ │
│Litho-transfers │ 2│ 7│ 3│ │
│Vitreous │ 1│ 2│ 8│ 3│
│ enamelling │ │ │ │ │
│Coach │ 60^4│ │ 70^5│ │
│ painting[261] │ │ │ │ │
│Paints used in │ │ │ │ │
│ other │ 36^2│ 4│ 50^5│ │
│ industries │ │ │ │ │
│Other industries│ 42^1│ 12│ 68^4│ 18│
│ │ │ │ │ │
│MERCURY │ 6│ │ 7│ 2│
│ POISONING │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│PHOSPHORUS │ 1│ 1^1│ 1│ 2│
│ POISONING │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ARSENIC │ 4│ │ 15^3│ 7│
│ POISONING │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ANTHRAX │ 43^{11}│ 9^2│ 28^5│ 9^2│
│ │ │ │ │ │
│TOXIC JAUNDICE │ │ │ │ │
└────────────────┴────────┴─────┴────────┴─────┘
INDEX
Aberdare, Lord, Home Secretary, 6
Abraham, Miss May, Inspector of Factories, vii, 9, 40, 201;
secretary to Lady Dilke, 9;
retirement, 13;
marriage, 13;
member of the Dangerous Trades Committee, 100.
_See_ Tennant
Accidents in factories, 139, 140;
in laundries, 141–146;
treatment, 147;
number, 196
Aerated water, 288
Aeroplanes, varnishing the wings, 129
Akers-Douglas, Rt. Hon. (Lord Chilston), Home Secretary, 192;
on Women Inspectors, 193
Alverstone, Lord, 207
America, “motion study,” 256
Anderson, Adelaide Mary, Inspector of Factories, 9
Anthrax, cases of, 95, 98, 115, 126, 306
Anti-Sweating Movement, 60
Antrim, 177
Ardara, 80
Arsenic, 95, 98, 288, 306
Asbestos industry, 96, 106
Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H., on Factory Laws, 10;
on Women Inspectors, 191, 192
Baden, Grand Duchy of, silk mills, 139
Bag-woman or carrier system, 90
_Beacon_, the, 252 _note_
Bedford College for Women, 270 _note_
Belfast, textile mill, case of half-timers, 55;
procession of workers, 75;
conference in, 109;
Congress of the Royal Sanitary Institute, 162, 268 _note_;
Health Commission, 175
Belgium, reformatory institutions, 182;
prevention of industrial fatigue, 255
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish, on the work of Women Inspectors, 195
Benzine, 288
Berlin, conference in, 10, 150
Bichromate of potassium, result of, 127, 290
Birmingham, prosecutions, 179;
munition factories, 231;
Congress of the Royal Sanitary Institute, 274
Birtwistle, Mr., Inspector of Textile Particulars, 85
Black Country factories, 43
Blackburn, 155
Board of Trade Wage Census, 63
Bonus system, 76
Bournville, conference at, 269
Branford, Victor, _Interpretations and Forecasts_, 149
Brass, 288
Bricks, glazing of, 120
Brickworks, 134
Briquettes, 288
Bristol, 80;
Women Workers, meeting, 9
Bronzing, dust from, 111, 288
Brooke-Gwynne, Maura, xi
Buffing of plated articles, 109
Burnley, 135, 155
Burns, Rt. Hon. John, on the work of Women Inspectors, 192
Cadbury, Mr., conference at Bournville, 269
Campbell, Dr. Janet, on Health of Women in Industry, 123 _note_;
_War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry_, 197
Canteens, result of, 257
Carbonic oxide poisoning, 127
Carotting, process of, 126
Celluloid, 290
Cement works, in Scotland, employment of women, 234
Chalmers, Sir Mackenzie, 11
Chapman, S. J., _Labour and Capital after the War_, 64 _note_, 227
_note_, 232 _note_
Chemical works, employment of women, 233
Chemicals, 290
Children, employment in factories, 131, 163–179;
result of lifting heavy weights, 131–135, 171;
examinations, 166, 168–174;
half-time system, 165, 177;
cases of rejection, 167;
in Ireland, 174–177;
number of, 177, 180
China scourers, 96;
mortality, 103–105
Christian Social Union Research Committee, 262
Chromate, lead, 120, 121, 290
Chrome holes, 127
Cleanliness of workshops, 45, 47, 48, 258
Clothing factories, wages, 67;
accidents, 146;
employment of mothers, 154;
number employed, 218, 225 _note_
Cohen, Miss H. F., 158
Colchester, clothing factories, 89;
rate of wages, 67
Collett, Miss Clara, Assistant Commissioner on Labour, 9
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse, criticism on the work of Women Inspectors,
193
Collis, Dr. E. L., 96, 110;
Director of the Welfare Department, 274
_Commonwealth_, the, 18
Consumption, compulsory notification, 110
Cooke-Taylor, Whateley, 164;
_The Modern Factory System_, 57
Cornwall, 78, 83
Cotton Cloth Factories Act of 1889, 99
Cotton mills, driving system, 8;
fines, 73
Coventry, factories in, 179, 268
Dangerous Trades Committee 100, 111, 137
Deane, Miss Lucy, Inspector of Factories, 9, 80, 81, 87, 103, 116, 117,
181, 185
_Deane_ v. _Hulbert Beach_, 203;
v. _Wilson_, 76, 77
Dermatitis or inflammation of the skin, case of, 127, 128
Dickie, Mrs., Inspector, 176
Digby, Sir Kenelm, 11
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles, on the work of Women Inspectors, 192, 194
Dilke, Lady, 9, 11
Dilution Officers of Munitions, 237
Donegal, experiences of Inspectors in, 213
_Donegal Vindicator_, 81 _note_
Dope poisoning, 129
Down, 177
Drage, Mr. Geoffrey, Secretary of the Labour Commission, 9
Drinking water, supply of, 46
Driving system, in cotton mills, 8
Drury, Mrs., Inspector, xi, 67;
sketch of a day’s work, 219–221.
_See_ Whitworth
Duckering, G. Elmhirst, Inspector of Factories, 101
Dundee, 155, 178
Dungloe, 81
Dust, dangers of, 102–112, 288
Edward IV., King, statute of, 58 _note_
Eight Hours Bill, 8
Electric accumulator industry, 115, 292
Electro-plate works, Sheffield, 109
Elementary Education Act, 166 _note_
Emergency Orders, 230, 239, 241
Employment of Children, Royal Commission of 1841, 103;
Act, 135, 136;
Committee on, in 1901, 168
“Employment of Mothers,” 156
Enamelling of metals, 100, 101, 292
Escreet, Miss, Inspector of Factories, xi, 92, 264
Fabian Society, 8
Factories, Women Inspectors, vii, ix, 1, 5, 7, 9;
number of, 15;
their work, 19;
evils of the system, 24–27;
hours of work, 27–34, 39, 239–244;
evils of overtime, 35–39;
defective sanitation, 39–44;
supply of drinking water, 46;
lighting, 46–50;
system of fines, 68–72;
practice of raffling, 72;
bonus system, 76;
dangerous processes, 94;
special rules, 95–98, 113;
mechanical ventilation, 100;
records, 112;
Women Medical Inspectors, 122;
accidents in, 139;
register of, 140;
employment of mothers, 150–163;
number of, 161, 180, 225 _note_;
employment of children, 163–179;
number of, 177;
half-time system, 165, 177;
daily visits of inspection, 216;
substitution of women, 233–239, 245;
welfare movement, 253–272;
women superintendents, 260, 268;
provision for meals, 261–264, 271;
neglect of seats, 265–267;
weight lifting, 267;
first-aid and ambulance work, 267;
hygienic safeguards, 272;
surveys, 273;
orders for welfare condition, 276–278;
committees, 278–281, 284;
series of welfare pamphlets, 281;
improved conditions, 282–285
Factories and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1916, 46
Factory Act of 1802, 150;
of 1878, 6, 7, 28 _note_, 49 _note_, 202;
of 1891, 10, 13, 97, 150, 166 _note_;
of 1895, 13, 31, 32, 49, 85, 191;
of 1901, 29, 30 _note_, 31, 33, 45, 49, 92, 94, 97, 127 _note_, 131,
166 _note_, 171, 182, 202, 230 _note_;
of 1907, 33, 186
Factory system, 4;
a workers’ welfare committee in a national factory, 278
Faithful, Miss Emily, letter to _The Times_, 6
Fencing of machinery, the term, 12;
accidents from, 139, 144
Fines, system of, 68–72
Fish-curing industry, 31, 128, 276 _note_;
number employed, 225 _note_
Flax preparation and carding, mortality, 102, 294
Flax scutch mills, 109
Ford, Miss I. O., 8
Foxford Convent, Mayo, 181
France, reformatory institutions, 182, 183;
industrial legislation, 199 _note_, 255
Fruit industry, 32;
number employed, 225 _note_
_Fullers, Ltd._ v. _Squire_, 204
Fustian clothing factories, 89
Gas stoves, unhooded, 49
Gasworks, employment of women, 235
George I., King, statute of, 58 _note_
Germany, reformatory institutions, 182, 183;
industrial legislation, 199 _note_, 255
Gladstone, Viscount, Departmental Committee, 105, 118 _note_;
on the increase of Women Inspectors, 194
Glasgow Trade Union Congress, 7
Glass factories of Sunderland, 135
Goadby, Dr. Kenneth W., _Lead Poisoning and Lead Absorption_, 99, 112
_note_, 114
Goods, payment in, evils of, 59, 62, 78, 80–85
Grimsby, 31
Haldane, Viscount, address to Factory Inspectors, 207
Half-time system, 165, 177
Hanley, 155
Hatch, Sir Ernest, Departmental Committee, 106, 118
Haynes, Miss Dorothy, 200 _note_
Heading yarn dyed in lead chromate, cases of poisoning, 120, 121, 304
Health Commission, in Belfast, Report of the, 175
Health Insurance, National, 121, 158, 162
Health, Ministry of, 152
Health of Munition Workers Committee, 237, 241, 242, 244, 247, 256
_note_, 257 _note_
Hewitt, Dr. E. M., 96
Hill, Dr. Leonard, 99
Hills, Mr., 195
Holland, Canon Scott, on the work of Factory Inspectors, 18
Home Office Memorandum on Substitution of Women, 229 _note_, 236
Homework, Select Committee on, 60
Hood, Thomas, _Song of the Shirt_, 8
Hosiery factories, teazle brushing, 108
Hours of work, 27–34, 39, 239–244;
reduction, 52
Hygiene and Industrial Employment, address on, 162
_Illumination in Factories_, 46
India-rubber works, 125, 298
Industrial Fatigue Research Board, 248
Industrial Law Indemnity Fund, 22
Industries, dangerous and unhealthy, 94, 287;
preventive measures, 288–305
Infant mortality, high rate of, 154
Institutions, reformatory or charitable, method of administration, 151,
182–189
Ireland, letters of thanks to Inspectors, 55;
wages of dressmakers, 80;
payment in goods, 80–83;
prosecutions, 82;
employment of children, 174–177;
convent industries, 181;
institutional laundries, 184
Italy, prevention of industrial fatigue, 255
Joteyko, Dr. Josefa, _Science of Labour_, 198, 246
Kent, Prof. Stanley, 255 _note_
Kid-glove makers, payment of, 84
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement, _Women and Industrial Changes_, 225 _note_
Kippering industry case, 213
Kropotkin, Prince, _Fields, Factories and Workshops_, 280
Labels, injurious practice of licking, 137–139
_Labour and Capital after the War_, 245 _note_
Labour Convention of 1919, 10
Labour, International Conference, at Berlin, 10
Labour, Ministry of, 237
Labour, Royal Commission on, 3, 9, 42
Lace-tinting industry, 110
Lakeman, Mr., on the evils of working overtime, 35
Lancashire, Limited Liability Company, case against, 42;
employment of mothers, 159
Laundries, hours of work, 32–34;
seaside, 38;
carbonic oxide poisoning, 127;
accidents in, 141–146;
remedies against, 142;
number, 143;
prosecutions, 145;
employment of mothers, 151–154;
institutional, 151, 184–188;
women employed, 180, 218, 225 _note_
Lead chromate, 120, 121, 290
Lead poisoning, 96, 100, 298, 304, 306
Leeds, factories, 89;
practice of raffling goods, 72
Legge, Dr. T. M., Senior Medical Inspector, xi, 96, 97, 107, 129;
Occupational Diseases, 99 _note_;
Lead Poisoning and Lead Absorption, 99 _note_, 112 _note_, 114
Lighting of factories and workshops, 46–50;
Committee on, 47
Linen-weaving factory, system of fines, 71
London, factories, 89;
School of Economics, 270 _note_
Longton, 104, 155
Lovibond, Miss, 112, 135.
_See_ Moorcroft
Lowestoft, fishing industry, 31, 276 _note_
Lucifer match factory, case of, 79
Lushington, Sir Godfrey, 11
Lye, bucket industry, 154
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred, 195
MacArthur, Miss Mary, 37
Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay, 195
Machinery, fencing of, 12;
accidents from, 139
Manchester, practice of raffling goods, 72;
“making-up” warehouses, 136
Manufacturers, Association of, 71, 75
Martindale, Miss Hilda, x, 23, 55, 56, 71, 80, 83, 109, 116, 119, 134,
156, 174, 176, 179, 185;
_Hygiene and Industrial Employment_, 162, 268 _note_
Mary, H.M. Queen, Fund, 188
Match-making industry, 124
Matthews, Rt. Hon. Henry, Home Secretary, 7
McKenna, Rt. Hon. R., on the work of Women Inspectors, 193
Meals, provision for, in factories, 261–264, 271
Medical Inspectors, 20, 95
Men, number employed in factories, 15, 16;
Inspectors, work of the, 20, 196;
number, 15
Mercerised cotton yarn dust, 108
Mercurial poisoning, cases of, 124–126, 306
Meredith, George, 224
Messrooms, 258, 262
Metals, enamelling and tinning of, 100, 101 _note_, 292, 304
Mill gearing, 12 _note_
Mill girls, deputation of, 222
Mines Acts, 97
Moorcroft, Mrs., 112.
_See_ Lovibond
Morrell, Mr., 195
Mothers, employment of, 150–163;
maternity fund, 157;
cases of, 158–162;
number, 161
Mulhouse, maternity fund, 157
Munition workers, number of, 228, 239;
long hours, 239–244
National Liberal Federation, meeting, 10
National Service, Ministry of, 237
Necrosis, cases of, 125
Needle-puncturing accidents, 146
Nicotine poisoning, 127
Niven, Dr., on the cleanliness of workshops, 48
Oastler, Richard, 3
Oram, Mr. R. E. Sprague, H.M. Chief Inspector, 13, 19;
retirement, 13, 19
Osborn, Mr. E. H., H.M. Superintending Inspector of Factories, 99, 102
Outwork, evil of, 30
Overtime, working, 28;
evils of, 35–39
Owen, Robert, 3, 253
Papworth, Miss Wyatt, Secretary of the Women’s Industrial Council, 36
Paterson, Mrs. Emma Ann, founds the Women’s Protective League, 6
Paterson, Miss Mary, Inspector of Factories, vii, xi, 9, 56, 72, 103,
115, 156, 160, 161, 166, 167, 171, 173, 185, 201;
on insanitary conditions, 41;
case of overcrowding, 44
Paterson, Mr. Thomas, 6
Peace Treaty of 1919, 10
Peel, Sir R., 3
Pendock, Mr. C. R., Inspector of Factories, 99, 101;
_Observations on Ventilation of Potteries and Removal of Dust_, 102
_note_
Pen-making trade, 88, 92;
system of “cards,” 93
Peripatetic Inspectors, 210
Perry, Miss, 145
Phosphorus necrosis, 124, 306
Physical Deterioration, Committee on, 155
Piecework, payment of, 85–93
Plumbism, cases of, 116, 290
Poisoning, cases of, 98, 306
Police Act, the little, 274–278
Police, Factories, etc., Act, 254 _note_
Potteries, records, 112;
Fund, 118
Pottery Code of Regulations, 117
_Power Laundry, The_, 33
Pratt, Mr. Hodgson, 6
Presbyterian Church, General Assembly of the, on child labour, 177
Preston, 155
Public Health Acts, 45, 207
Purdon, Dr., 102
Rabbit skins, dust from, 126, 170 _note_
Raffling, practice of, 72
Reconstruction, Ministry of, 237
_Redgrave_ v. _Kelly_, case of, 75
Reformatory institutions, administration, 151, 182–189
Religious institutions, workers, 181
Rent, deductions for, 79
Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew White, Home Secretary, 10;
on Women Factory Inspectors, 191
Rowntree, Mr. Seebohm, Director of the Welfare Department, 232, 273
Royal Sanitary Institute, Congress at Belfast, 162
Rubber articles, 124, 125
Rubber tyre factory, system of fines, 69
Russell, Lord, of Killowen, 207
Sadler, Michael, 3
Sadler, Miss, Inspector of Factories, 114 _note_, 122
Safety-pin factory, system of deductions, 69
Sanitation, defective, in factories and workshops, 39–44
_Schofield_ v. _Schunk_, 146
School Child Leaflet, 274
Scientific instrument making, 236
Scotland, cement works, employment of women, 234
Seats, lack of, in factories, 265–267
_Service Magazine_, 280
Shaftesbury, Earl of, 3, 7, 164
Sheffield, electro-plate works, 109;
conference in, 259;
dinner clubs, 263
Shell factory, 251
Shetland, 78
Shift systems, 242
Silk waste carding and spinning, 107
Simon, Sir John, 104
Slocock, Miss, Inspector of Factories, 85, 178
Smith, Adam, 62
Smith, Sydney, 99
Somerset, 78, 83
Squire, Miss R. E., Inspector of Factories, x, 10, 60, 72, 73, 81, 82,
87, 88, 107, 108, 113, 120, 132, 136, 148, 152, 155, 156, 169, 178,
181, 199 _note_, 203, 271;
member of a Committee on Lighting in Factories, 47;
cases, 53, 54;
on the wages of girls, 65;
in charge of the Women’s Welfare Department, 274
_Squire_ v. _Boyer & Co._, 205;
v. _Midland Lace Company_, 85;
v. _Sweeney_, 83, 85
Staffordshire Potteries, 43, 116, 131, 133, 136, 155
Star, the, 37
Steel works in Yorkshire, employment of women, 234
Stoke-on-Trent, 104
Stourbridge, brick-making, 154
Stuart, Prof. William, _Economic Annals of the Nineteenth Century_, 164
_note_;
_Substitution of Women in Industry_, 229 _note_
Substitutes, women as. _See_ Women Workers
Sunderland, glass factories, 135
Sweated Industries, Exhibition of 1906, 60
Sweating system, 8
Tailoring trade, 89
Tawney, Mr. R. H., _Minimum Rates in the Tailoring Trade_, 67
Taylor, Mr. Stevenson, Inspector of Factories, 99
Taylor, Mr. Theodore, tribute to the work of Women Inspectors, 192
Teazle-brushing machines, guards for, 108, 148
Temperature of workrooms, 44, 50
Tennant, Mrs. H. J., 9, 192, 207;
Chairman of the Industrial Law Indemnity Fund, 22.
_See_ Abraham
Textile factories, number employed, 218, 225 _note_
Theatrical costume industry, 37;
cases of overtime, 38
Time-cribbing, suppression of, 38
Tinning of metals, 100, 101, 304
Tinplate works, loads, 132, 133
Tobacco works, cases of poisoning, 127
Toxic jaundice, cases of, 129, 306
Tracey, Miss A., Inspector of Factories, 9, 23, 121, 143, 148, 185
_Tracey_ v. _Pretty_, 206
Trade Boards Act of 1909, 60
Trade Union Congress, Bristol, 7;
Glasgow, 7;
organisation for women, 3
Troup, Sir Edward, 11
Truck, meaning of the word, 58;
committee on, 60, 69, 76
Truck Acts, 27, 78; of 1831, 58, 73, 75, 85;
of 1887, 58, 75, 85;
of 1896, 58, 70, 73, 75
Tuckwell, Miss Gertrude, Hon. Sec. of the Women’s Trade Union League,
56;
_The Jeopardy of a Department_, 57 _note_
Unemployment, 281
Urwick, Prof., 269
Vandevelde, Mr., the Belgian, 286
Varley, Miss Julia, article in the _Yorkshire Factory Times_, 25 _note_
Ventilation of workrooms, 40, 44, 47, 100
Vines, Miss, Inspector of Factories, 116, 134 _note_, 145, 178, 179
Wage Census of 1886 and 1906, 63
Wages of women, 59, 63–68;
payment in goods, 59, 62, 78, 80–85;
deductions, 64–66, 68–72;
system of fines, 68–72
War, the Great, 14, 16, 27, 85, 113, 128, 178, 188, 253;
women’s work in the, 224, 226–236;
tributes to, 231
War, munitions of, production, 228
War Museum, National, 227, 232
Weaving, art of, 251
Weights, heavy, lifting, 130–136, 267, 302
Welfare Department, 272;
movement in factories, 253–272;
trained women superintendents, 260, 268
Werner, Mr. E. A. R., Inspector of Factories, 106
Whitaker, Dr., 102
White lead industry, cases of poisoning, 114–117, 120–122, 149, 298,
304;
regulations, 118;
preventive measures, 120
Whitelegge, Sir Arthur, M.D., Chief Inspector of Factories, 13, 19, 97
Whitley Report, 123
Whitlock, Miss, M.B., 106, 109, 110, 138, 147, 262, 268;
reports on lead cases, 112, 119, 121;
transferred to the Industrial Schools Department, 113
Whitworth, Miss, 67, 261.
_See_ Drury
Williams, Mr., Superintending Inspector, 99
Wilson, Mr. D. R., _Illumination in Factories_, 46
Women Assistant Commissioners on Labour, 9
Women Dilution Officers, employment of, 198
Women Inspectors, vii, ix, 1, 5;
appointment, 7, 9;
official status, 11;
work, 11–14, 78, 124, 191, 198–223, 270;
number, 14, 192, 218, 237;
testimony to, 18;
detection of cases of overtime, 35–39;
value of their visits, 52;
relations with the workers, 53–55;
letters of thanks, 55;
evidence on the result of low wages, 59, 63;
cases, 80–82, 202, 209;
reports on payment of piecework, 87;
inquiries into dangerous processes, 95;
taking of records, 112;
tributes to their work, 191–195, 222;
study of foreign industrial legislation, 199;
higher education, 201;
prosecutions, 202–210;
address from Lord Haldane, 207;
reading for the Bar, 209;
peripatetic, 210;
experiences in the courts, 214;
daily visits of inspection, 216;
inspection of munitions factories, 235, 239;
reports on the result of long hours of work, 240–244
Women Medical Inspectors, 122
Women superintendents in factories, 260, 268
Women Welfare Officers, 237
Women Workers, National Council of, meeting at Bristol, 9;
number employed in factories, 15, 16, 225 _note_;
characteristics, 22;
courage, 22–24;
evils of the system, 24–27;
hours of work, 27–34, 39;
relations with the Inspectors, 53;
complaints against managers, 53–55;
wages, 59, 63–68;
dangerous processes, 94;
rules for safeguarding, 95–98, 113;
injuries from lead processes on maternity, 116, 149;
result of lifting heavy weights, 132–136, 267;
number employed in laundries, 180;
work in the War, 224, 226–236;
substitutes, 227, 233–239, 245;
tributes to, 231;
in engineering, chemical and gasworks, 231, 233–235;
result of their wartime experiences, 246–249
Women and Young Persons Act, 1920, 115
Women’s Employment Committee, Report, 4, 18, 150, 158, 237
Women’s Industrial Council, 36
_Women’s Industrial News_, 198, 200
Women’s Institute, founded, 226
Women’s Liberal Association, 8
Women’s Protective and Provident League, founded, 6
Women’s Trade Union League, 6, 56
_Women’s Union Journal_, extract from, 7
_Women’s War Work_, 232 _note_
Wörishoffer, Dr., 183
Work, function of, 250
Workers’ Trustees Council, 279
Workers’ Welfare Committee, 278
Working men appointed Inspectors, 7, 8
Workshops, number of, 15;
defective sanitation, 39–44;
ventilation, 40, 44, 47;
lack of heating, 40;
overcrowding, 44;
temperature, 44, 50, 99;
drainage, 45;
cleanliness, 45, 47;
supply of drinking water, 46;
lighting, 46–50
Yarmouth, fish-curing industry, 32, 276
Yarn, heading, dyed in lead chromate, 120, 121, 304
Yeovil, 84
Yorkshire factories, 43, 234
_Yorkshire Factory Times_, 25 _note_
-----
Footnote 1:
See Note, p. 21.
Footnote 2:
Minutes of Evidence, Group C, Vol. I. Questions 4638 and 6830.
Footnote 3:
Report of Women’s Employment Committee, Ministry of Reconstruction,
1919, Cd. 9239, p. 60.
Footnote 4:
_Ibid._
Footnote 5:
Afterwards the Women’s Trade Union League.
Footnote 6:
From an obituary notice by Hodgson Pratt in the _Women’s Union
Journal_, in December, 1886.
Footnote 7:
“Fencing” is a term used but not defined in the Factory Act, in
Section 10 of 1901. Under this section, guards, automatic as well as
fixed, are required for dangerous machinery. Other dangerous parts—
_e.g._, “mill gearing”—if not safe by position must be securely
fenced.
Footnote 8:
Report quoted Cd. 9239, p. 61.
Footnote 9:
Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1912, p. 113.
Footnote 10:
Under the chairmanship of Mrs. H. J. Tennant.
Footnote 11:
A carding engine in a cotton mill.
Footnote 12:
Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1895, p. 112.
Footnote 13:
Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1913, pp. 70, 89.
Footnote 14:
_Yorkshire Factory Times_, September 11, 1896. Article by Julia
Varley.
Footnote 15:
Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1895, p. 119.
Footnote 16:
_I.e._, in textile factories from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. or 7 a.m. to 7
p.m., with two hours, which must be specified, taken off for meals;
and on Saturdays 6 a.m. to 1.30 p.m., with an hour for a meal. In non-
textile factories a period, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., was also permissible.
Footnote 17:
Act of 1878, sect. 53, and third schedule, part three; amended by Act
of 1895, sect. 14, and Act of 1901, sect. 49, second schedule.
Footnote 18:
And even thirteen-year-old workers, when they were qualified by an
educational certificate to rank as a young person.
Footnote 19:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1903, p. 223.
Footnote 20:
_Ibid._, 1910, p. 155. Section 31 of the Factory Act, 1901,
restricting employment inside and outside the factory or workshop on
the same day, had but a limited effect.
Footnote 21:
_Ibid._, 1914, p. 54.
Footnote 22:
See Special Order, dated September 11, 1907.
Footnote 23:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1896, p. 67.
Footnote 24:
_Ibid._, 1903, p. 223.
Footnote 25:
The late Miss Wyatt Papworth, whose constant help I desire gratefully
to record.
Footnote 26:
The legal period closed at 4 p.m.
Footnote 27:
Annual Report, 1902, p. 153; 1903, p. 224.
Footnote 28:
_Ibid._, 1911, p. 152.
Footnote 29:
_Ibid._, 1912, pp. 142, 145.
Footnote 30:
Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1900, p. 367.
Footnote 31:
Unsuitable, insanitary, not separate for the sexes, or totally
lacking.
Footnote 32:
Annual Report, 1902, p. 154.
Footnote 33:
Annual Report, 1903, p. 203.
Footnote 34:
Annual Report, 1903, p. 203.
Footnote 35:
_Ibid._, 1902, p. 154.
Footnote 36:
Included in Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1911, p. 239.
Footnote 37:
Departmental (Home Office) Committee on Lighting in Factories and
Workshops, 1915, Cd. 8000; 1921, Cd. 118.
Footnote 38:
See Annual Report of the Chief Inspector for 1920, chap. ix., for a
résumé by Miss Squire of the recent advances and parallel delays, in
progress, in this vital matter in factories.
Footnote 39:
Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, sects. 3 and 36.
Footnote 40:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1911, p. 136.
Footnote 41:
For example, neglect to present seventeen little girls for examination
as to physical fitness by the certifying surgeon, of whom five were
subsequently rejected by him and sent for medical treatment; sanitary
conveniences not separate for boys and girls.
Footnote 42:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1912, p. 121.
Footnote 43:
_Ibid._, 1902, p. 153.
Footnote 44:
“The Jeopardy of a Department,” by Gertrude M. Tuckwell. Published by
the Women’s Trade Union League, 1897, p. 7.
Footnote 45:
“The Modern Factory System,” by Whateley Cooke-Taylor, late His
Majesty’s Superintending Inspector of Factories.
Footnote 46:
These words are in a statute of Edward IV.
Footnote 47:
A Franco-Scottish word meaning _barter_ that appeared in a statute of
George I., after the Act of Union. The Act of 1831 was “to prohibit
the payment, in certain trades, of wages in goods or otherwise than in
current coin of the realm.”
Footnote 48:
Extended at this date to Ireland also.
Footnote 49:
Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1897, p. 109.
Footnote 50:
Report of Committee on Truck, 1908, vol. i., appendix iv., Cd. 4442.
Footnote 51:
Report from the Select Committee on Homework ordered by the House of
Commons to be printed July 22, 1908.
Footnote 52:
Compare figures given in “Labour and Capital after the War,” edited by
S. J. Chapman, C.B.E., iv., p. 80. London, John Murray, 1918.
Footnote 53:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1898, p. 185.
Footnote 54:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1897, p. 112.
Footnote 55:
_Ibid._, 1901, p. 190.
Footnote 56:
_Ibid._, 1914, p. 49.
Footnote 57:
_Op. cit._ (1915, G. Bell and Sons), p. 127.
Footnote 58:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1908, p. 155.
Footnote 59:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1911, p. 161.
Footnote 60:
_Ibid._, 1912, p. 157.
Footnote 61:
Report of the Committee on Truck, 1908, Cd. 4442. QQ. 7716–8, 8192,
8204, 8234, 17892, etc., and Report, vol. i., p. 25.
Footnote 62:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1898, p. 185.
Footnote 63:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1902, p. 190.
Footnote 64:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1911, p. 162; and 1914, p. 50.
Footnote 65:
_Ibid._, 1905, p. 328.
Footnote 66:
_Ibid._, 1906, p. 239.
Footnote 67:
_Ibid._, 1901, p. 191.
Footnote 68:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1901, p. 190.
Footnote 69:
Report of the Committee on Truck, 1908, vol. i., pp. 28, 89.
Footnote 70:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1897, p. 110; 1906, p. 240; 1908, p.
160.
Footnote 71:
See below, Chapter VI.
Footnote 72:
Truck Act, 1831, sect. 25.
Footnote 73:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1898, p. 182.
Footnote 74:
_Ibid._, 1902, p. 191.
Footnote 75:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1907, p. 200.
Footnote 76:
_Ibid._, 1907, p. 200.
Footnote 77:
The _Donegal Vindicator_, June 29, 1900.
Footnote 78:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1899, pp. 275–7.
Footnote 79:
_Ibid._, 1900, pp. 29–30.
Footnote 80:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1900, pp. 352, 359, 404.
Footnote 81:
_Ibid._, 1907, p. 196.
Footnote 82:
Factory Act, 1895, sect. 40.
Footnote 83:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1896, p. 74.
Footnote 84:
Act of 1891, sect. 24.
Footnote 85:
_Ibid._, 1895, sect. 40 (6).
Footnote 86:
_Ibid._, 1901, sects. 114 and 116.
Footnote 87:
Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1898, p. 182.
Footnote 88:
_E.g._, cutting, piercing, marking, raising, grinding, bending,
polishing, etc.
Footnote 89:
Annual Report, 1902, p. 189.
Footnote 90:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1904, p. 279.
Footnote 91:
Miss Slocock in Annual Report, 1907, p. 193.
Footnote 92:
Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, sect. 79.
Footnote 93:
Such as white lead manufacture, lucifer match making, paint and colour
making, hollow ware enamelling.
Footnote 94:
For examination of children and young persons under sixteen years as
to physical fitness for working in a factory, and enquiry into certain
grave and fatal accidents.
Footnote 95:
See especially Fourth Report of the Medical Officer to the Privy
Council, 1861, pp. 29, 31, etc.
Footnote 96:
In “Occupational Diseases,” by T. M. Legge, C.B.E., M.D., etc., p. 68,
and in “Lead Poisoning and Lead Absorption,” by T. M. Legge and
Kenneth W. Goadby, 1912, pp. 98–102.
Footnote 97:
Later amended and in 1911 developed into special regulations under the
Principal Act of 1901.
Footnote 98:
Reports on Enamelling of Metals, 1903 (Cd. 1610), and on Tinning of
Metals, 1907 (Cd. 3793), especially pp. 23 and following.
Footnote 99:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1920, p. 53.
Footnote 100:
“Observations on Ventilation of Potteries and Removal of Dust,” by C.
R. Pendock, 1913, Stoke-on-Trent.
Footnote 101:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1893, pp. 194–5.
Footnote 102:
_Ibid._, 1898, pp. 162–4. See also Annual Reports, 1919 and 1920.
Footnote 103:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1898, pp. 135 and 163.
Footnote 104:
_Ibid._, 1908, p. 144.
Footnote 105:
The Committee reported in 1910, Cd. 5219, Cd. 5278, and Cd. 5385.
Footnote 106:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1898, pp. 135, 171–2.
Footnote 107:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1906, p. 220, and 1920, p. 75.
Footnote 108:
_Ibid._, 1906, p. 221; 1907, p. 173.
Footnote 109:
_Ibid._, 1902, pp. 171–2.
Footnote 110:
_Ibid._, 1909, p. 146.
Footnote 111:
_Ibid._, 1910, p. 129.
Footnote 112:
Which produces the effect of gilding by application of very finely
divided metallic dust (copper, zinc, tin, antimony, being various
ingredients).
Footnote 113:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1911, pp. 150–7. The form of card
record used can be seen on p. 219 of “Lead Poisoning and Lead
Absorption,” by Drs. Legge and Goadby.
Footnote 114:
A vivid description of women’s work in blue beds before conversion
into white lead was given by Miss Sadler in the Annual Report for
1913.
Footnote 115:
Comprising twenty-one factories registered in 1920, as compared with
639 for pottery manufacture and decoration.
Footnote 116:
Regulations for Manufacture of Electric Accumulators, 1903, No. 1004.
Footnote 117:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1897, p. 101.
Footnote 118:
_Ibid._, 1906, p. 214.
Footnote 119:
_Ibid._, 1900, p. 369.
Footnote 120:
Appointed 1908 by Mr. Herbert Gladstone, reported 1910, Cd. 5219, Cd.
5278, and Cd. 5385.
Footnote 121:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1913, p. 89.
Footnote 122:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1913, pp. 137–8.
Footnote 123:
_Ibid._, 1913, pp. 88, 89.
Footnote 124:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1911, p. 145.
Footnote 125:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1920, p. 84, and Report of War
Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry, 1919; Memorandum by Dr. Janet
Campbell on Health of Women in Industry, p. 293, regarding urgent need
for Women Medical Inspectors of Factories.
Footnote 126:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1911, p. 147. The old Special Rules
have been converted into more modern Regulations in 1921.
Footnote 127:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1912, p. 138.
Footnote 128:
_Ibid._, 1913, p. 87.
Footnote 129:
_Ibid._, 1902, p. 168; and Factory Act, 1901, sect. 136.
Footnote 130:
The varnishing was to make the wings impervious to moisture and air.
For the interesting story of the changed methods, see Annual Report of
the Chief Inspector for 1914, chapter xii., and further, regarding
methods of ventilation, the Annual Report for 1917, pp. 18–20.
Footnote 131:
See Medical Research Committee Annual Report for 1916 and 1917 for
experiments in laboratories and studies in factories.
Footnote 132:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1897, p. 104.
Footnote 133:
_Ibid._, 1910, p. 130.
Footnote 134:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1900, p. 375.
Footnote 135:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1901, p. 175.
Footnote 136:
_Ibid._, 1902, p. 173.
Footnote 137:
A small boy was once found by Miss Vines carrying a weight greater
than his own weight.
Footnote 138:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1903, pp. 221–2.
Footnote 139:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1909, p. 147.
Footnote 140:
_Ibid._, 1909, p. 147.
Footnote 141:
Final Report of the Departmental Committee on Dangerous Trades, 1899,
pp. 31–3 (Cd. 9509).
Footnote 142:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1912, p. 142, and for 1913, p. 90.
Footnote 143:
_Ibid._, 1903, pp. 222–3.
Footnote 144:
See explanation in Introduction, p. 12.
Footnote 145:
The figures are given below in Chapter VI., p. 196.
Footnote 146:
Annual Reports of the Chief Inspector, 1896, p. 66; 1900, p. 377;
1901, p. 170, etc.
Footnote 147:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1900, pp. 377–9.
Footnote 148:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1902, pp. 162–7.
Footnote 149:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1913, pp. 82–3.
Footnote 150:
Published as Form 414, price 1d.: “Memorandum on Fencing of Machinery
and Prevention of Accidents in Laundries.” Second edition issued in
1913. No revision has been found necessary since that date.
Footnote 151:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1913, pp. 84 and 110.
Footnote 152:
By 1911 the attention directed to the matter at last produced “an
apparently satisfactory finger guard for the needle,” and in 1912 two
more guards were devised. Such guards had their main effect where
young machinists were trained to their use from the beginning. For
adult trained workers their effectiveness was slight.
Footnote 153:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1909, p. 142.
Footnote 154:
_Ibid._, 1906, pp. 207–8, and 1909, p. 140.
Footnote 155:
Factory Act, 1891, sect. 17; later sect. 61 of the Act of 1901.
Footnote 156:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1897, pp. 96 and 107.
Footnote 157:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1898, p. 181.
Footnote 158:
_Ibid._, 1897, p. 107.
Footnote 159:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1904, pp. 273–4.
Footnote 160:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1907, p. 184.
Footnote 161:
See Annual Report of the Chief Inspector for the years named.
Footnote 162:
See Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1909, p. 159.
Footnote 163:
See above, Chapter II., p. 57.
Footnote 164:
“Economic Annals of the Nineteenth Century,” by Professor William
Stuart, 1910, Preface, p. vii.
Footnote 165:
The Factory Act, 1891, sect. 18, raised the age of entry from ten to
eleven years, but the change took effect only in January, 1893, and
even then not for any children lawfully employed before January 1. The
age was raised to twelve by the Elementary Education Act Amendment
Act, 1899, in England and Wales. The Act of 1901 made the obligation
general.
Footnote 166:
Cd. 849.
Footnote 167:
Annual Reports of Chief Inspector, 1896, p. 69; for 1900, p. 396; for
1902, p. 184.
Footnote 168:
Such as delicate eyes of girls of twelve and fourteen becoming
inflamed and suffering from conjunctivitis when exposed to dust from
rabbit skins dressed with mercury solution in fur-pulling works. See
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1899, pp. 273–4.
Footnote 169:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1901, pp. 186–7.
Footnote 170:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1905, pp. 319–20.
Footnote 171:
In this ancient industry the feature of sub-employment by working
potters obtained, and gave a distinctive quality to the workplace as
compared with that of other more modern industries.
Footnote 172:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1905, p. 314.
Footnote 173:
She had been working there and presenting living pictures of
conditions in industry for several years, and the accompanying Annual
Report for 1906 should be specially studied to see what she did.
Footnote 174:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1908, pp. 154–5.
Footnote 175:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1908, p. 154.
Footnote 176:
_Ibid._, 1906, pp. 230–1.
Footnote 177:
See Annual Reports of Chief Inspector, 1911, pp. 156–7; 1912, p. 149;
1913, p. 98.
Footnote 178:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1917, p. 16.
Footnote 179:
Annual Reports of Chief Inspector, 1901, p. 152, and 1902, pp. 147 and
194–205.
Footnote 180:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1905, p. 258.
Footnote 181:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1913, p. 94.
Footnote 182:
_Ibid._, 1914, pp. 46–7.
Footnote 183:
Annual Reports of Chief Inspector, 1879, p. 98.
Footnote 184:
_Ibid._, 1921, pp. 9 and 10.
Footnote 185:
See footnote, Introduction, p. 12.
Footnote 186:
Debates on Home Office Estimates, August 5, 1901, and June 29, 1903.
Footnote 187:
In 1910 the figures were: Males, 118,822 (fatal 1,049); females 10,728
(fatal 31). The rates of the two do not vary widely.
Footnote 188:
Report published 1919, Cmd. 135. See especially pp. 170 and 253.
Footnote 189:
“Science of Labour,” by Dr. Josefa Joteyko. George Routledge and Sons,
Ltd., 1919.
Footnote 190:
This assertion appears to be supported by the summaries I made for the
Annual Reports for 1894, pp. 33–4, on French laws and orders, and for
1895, pp. 136–219, on German and Austrian industrial codes, and in
various other places, before public interest in comparative labour
legislation had been awakened.
References by Women Inspectors, and particularly by Miss Squire to law
and administration in other industrial countries, appear in my Annual
Reports over and over again, generally where our laws were inadequate
to remedy complaints. For instance, complaints on defective light in
the factory, lack of washing conveniences, on heavy weight carrying
and dangerous processes (see Annual Reports of Chief Inspector for
1897, pp. 103–5; 1898, p. 169; 1899, p. 239; 1904, p. 243).
I also visited continental countries to inspect factories with the
Inspectors of the country, and to study their office methods (see
Annual Reports, 1899, 1901, and 1902), and to take part in Congresses
and International Exhibitions (see Annual Reports, 1903, 1911, and
1920).
I began to study fatigue prevention after conferring with Dr. Josefa
Joteyko in Brussels in 1903.
Footnote 191:
_Women’s Industrial News_, January, 1915; article by Dorothy Haynes,
p. 313.
Footnote 192:
In a few instances, where men and boys were jointly concerned with
women in contraventions—_e.g._, in Truck cases, fencing of machinery
in laundries, or illegal employment of children—a Woman Inspector
would take proceedings for both.
Footnote 193:
Factory Act, 1878, sect. 81; later Factory Act, 1901, sect. 135 (2).
Footnote 194:
From shorthand notes of the case quoted in Annual Report of the Chief
Inspector for 1901, pp. 278–9.
Footnote 195:
See Annual Report of the Chief Inspector for 1900, pp. 360 and 363.
Footnote 196:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1899, p. 249.
Footnote 197:
See Annual Report of the Chief Inspector for 1899, p. 247.
Footnote 198:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1901, p. 161.
Footnote 199:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1912, pp. 142–4.
Footnote 200:
_Ibid._, 1913, pp. 70–3, 100–1.
Footnote 201:
Article on “Women and Industrial Changes,” by Sir Clement Kinloch-
Cooke, M.P., in the _Nineteenth Century and After_, for December,
1915, p. 1405.
Footnote 202:
In 1907, _textiles_ employed 690,834 women and girls and 410,743 men
and boys; _clothing_ employed 487,167 women and girls and 181,862 men
and boys; _laundries_ employed 103,635 women and girls and 11,466 men
and boys; _fish curing_ and _fruit preserving_ 29,677 women and girls
and 11,440 men and boys.
Footnote 203:
See Memorandum on War Office Contracts, Cd. 8447, and “Labour and
Capital after the War,” by S. J. Chapman, C.B.E., pp. 73–6.
Footnote 204:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1914, p. 45.
Footnote 205:
See Annual Reports of Chief Inspector for 1915, 1916, and 1917;
collection of Pamphlets on “Substitution of Women in Industry,” 1917,
and Home Office Memorandum on Substitution of Women in non-Munition
Factories, 1919.
Footnote 206:
These were made under Section 150 of the Act of 1901, providing for
public emergency.
Footnote 207:
See “Labour and Capital after the War,” by S. J. Chapman, C.B.E.,
1919; “Women’s War Work,” issued by the War Office, Chiswick Press;
and Various Reports on Dilution issued by the Ministry of Munitions.
Footnote 208:
See Annual Reports of the Chief Inspector for 1916, p. 9, and for
1918, p. 31.
Footnote 209:
“Rightly unsuccessful are some experiments in unsuitable
directions ... in operating the tilting furnaces in brass casting ...
it was too exhausting even for short spells, and very few men coming
fresh to the work can stand it for long at a time.”—Annual Report of
Chief Inspector, 1917, p. 12.
Footnote 210:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1917, p. 12.
Footnote 211:
_Ibid._, 1917, p. 13.
Footnote 212:
Home Office Memorandum on Substitution of Women, 1919, pp. 7 and 48.
Footnote 213:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1920, p. 16, and the Restoration of
Pre-War Practice in Industry Act, 1919.
Footnote 214:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1917, pp. 11 and 14.
Footnote 215:
_Ibid._, pp. 9 and 13.
Footnote 216:
Who increased until they numbered 900,000 women and girls.
Footnote 217:
Ten and a half hours net and sixty hours weekly maximum.
Footnote 218:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1914, pp. 40–41.
Footnote 219:
Such as two daily 8-hour shifts, three 8-hour shifts in the twenty-
four hours, and two 10 or 10½-hour shifts in the twenty-four hours.
See Annual Report of the Chief Inspector for 1915, p. 9; for 1917, p.
7; and 1918, pp. 2–12.
Footnote 220:
In 1915 a woman working daily in a munition factory from 7 a.m. to
8.30 p.m., on Saturdays from 7 a.m. to 8.45 p.m., and Sundays from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m., besides spending two hours daily in transit to and
from her work, informed an Inspector that she was able to work these
long hours chiefly because of the good food she was able to obtain as
the result of increased wages. She had an invalid husband and six
children under twelve years to support. Although she paid a woman 8s.
a week to mind her children and spent 2s. 6d. on tram fares weekly,
still her wages allowed her to feed better than she had ever done
before.
Footnote 221:
See “Labour and Capital after the War,” already cited, p. 85.
Footnote 222:
See above, p. 198, and “Science of Labour,” by Dr. Josefa Joteyko,
1919 (G. Routledge and Sons, Ltd.).
Footnote 223:
Appointed in the summer of 1915 “to consider and advise on questions
of industrial fatigue, hours of labour, and other matters affecting
the permanent health and physical efficiency of workers in munition
factories.”
Footnote 224:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1919, p. 10.
Footnote 225:
The word “work” appears to be the root in the diverse words “energy,”
“liturgy.”
Footnote 226:
See the Sayings of the Vicar of Morwenstowe in the first number of the
_Beacon_.
Footnote 227:
See Chapter IV., p. 94.
Footnote 228:
Police Factories, etc., (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916, sect. 7
(1).
Footnote 229:
From France, Belgium, Italy, and Germany; see Annual Report of Chief
Inspector, 1903. In 1913 the Home Office appointed Professor Stanley
Kent to make physiological investigation into fatigue in industry.
Footnote 230:
For textbooks and pamphlets it may suffice to refer readers to the
“Health of the Munition Worker,” a handbook prepared by the Health of
Munition Workers Committee, published in 1917, and to the “Welfare”
pamphlet series issued by the Home Office, 1917–21.
Footnote 231:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1899, p. 258, and for 1904, p. 243.
Footnote 232:
As may be seen in the literary use of the word by Chaucer and in the
Authorized Version.
Footnote 233:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1900, p. 356.
Footnote 234:
_Ibid._, 1907, p. 188.
Footnote 235:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1907, p. 161.
Footnote 236:
_Ibid._, 1911, pp. 138–9.
Footnote 237:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1908, p. 134.
Footnote 238:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1907, p. 173.
Footnote 239:
_Ibid._, 1909, p. 148.
Footnote 240:
“Hygiene and Industrial Employment,” by Hilda Martindale. Address read
at the Congress of the Royal Sanitary Institute in Belfast, January,
1911.
Footnote 241:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1912, pp. 150–1.
Footnote 242:
_Ibid._, 1909, p. 122.
Footnote 243:
At Bedford College for Women and the London School of Economics.
Footnote 244:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1913, p. 100.
Footnote 245:
_Ibid._, 1913, p. 101.
Footnote 246:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1914, p. 52.
Footnote 247:
_Ibid._, 1915, p. 15.
Footnote 248:
6 & 7 Geo. V., c. 31, A.D. 1916.
Footnote 249:
And have with great benefit to the workers been made compulsory in the
fish-curing industry in Yarmouth and Lowestoft.
Footnote 250:
The provisions were for suitable protective clothing, accommodation
for clothing of women and girls under charge of a responsible person,
a suitable messroom separate from the cloakroom, furnished with
sufficient tables and seats with back rests, adequate means of warming
food and boiling water and washing facilities, and the messroom has to
be sufficiently warmed for use during meals and to be placed under the
charge of a responsible person and be kept clean.
Footnote 251:
Since August, 1921, an order has been made regarding welfare
conditions in an individual factory.
Footnote 252:
Annual Report of Chief Inspector for 1916, p. 10. The following and
many more examples can be seen in subsequent Annual Reports, and in an
account of works’ committees issued by the Ministry of Labour, and in
the organ of the Welfare Workers’ Institute.
Footnote 253:
Published by H.M. Stationery Office: (1) Protective Clothing; (2)
Messrooms and Canteens; (3) Welfare Supervision; (4) First-Aid and
Ambulance; (5) Ventilation; (6) Seats for Workers; (7) Lighting in
Factories and Workshops; (8) Cloakrooms, Washing Facilities, Drinking
Water, and Sanitary Accommodation.
Footnote 254:
See Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1919, chapter viii., and
Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1920, chapter vi.
Footnote 255:
See footnote to p. 290.
Footnote 256:
These Chemical Regulations were confirmed on July 11, 1922, and in
consequence the Benzine (No. 3) and Chromate (No. 10) Regulations were
revoked.
Footnote 257:
Under the Anthrax Prevention Act, 1919, provision has been made and of
all wool and animal hair from Egypt. (See also Nos. 37 and 38.)
Footnote 258:
The Women and Young Persons (Employment in Lead Processes) Act, 1920,
prohibits altogether their employment in certain processes connected
with lead manufacture and in any process involving the use of lead
compounds and causing dust and fumes, or in which the workers are
liable to be splashed with a lead compound, subject to medical
examination, provision of exhaust ventilation to remove dust or fumes,
protective clothing, messroom and cloakroom, and cleanliness of tools,
apparatus, and workrooms.
Footnote 259:
See footnote, p. 296.
Footnote 260:
Total cases in factory and workshop.
Footnote 261:
All the female cases in coach painting were due to painting
perambulators, except the one in 1917.
Footnote 262:
All due to heading of yarn.
Footnote 263:
Of these cases four were due to heading of yarn and twelve to bullet
and shrapnel making.
Footnote 264:
In 1913 eighteen cases among women were due to heading of yarn.
Footnote 265:
In 1908 seven cases among women were due to heading of yarn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
Page Changed from Changed to
27 grew steadily and rapidly, until grew steadily and rapidly, until
in 1819 a in 1919 a
124 of mercury to assist felting in of mercury to assist felting in
hatters’ furriers hatters’ and furriers
297 for the disinfection, on arrival [This line was removed because
in Great Britain, of goat hair there is no related content on
from India, this page or on the pages
immediately before or after it.]
● Fixed typos; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.
● Renumbered footnotes and moved them all to the end of the final
chapter.
● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
● Enclosed bold or blackletter font in =equals=.
● The caret (^) is used to indicate superscript, whether applied to a
single character (as in 2^d) or to an entire expression (as in
1^{st}).
● Subscripts are shown using an underscore (_) with curly braces { },
as in H_{2}O.
● Images without captions use HTML alt text.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WOMEN IN THE FACTORY ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg
Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
